Wetland classification in Newfoundland and Labrador using multi-source SAR and optical data integration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A vast portion of Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) is covered by wetland areas. Notably, it is the only province in Atlantic Canada that does not have a wetland inventory system. Wetlands are important areas of research because they play a pivotal role in ecological conservation and impact human activities in the province. Therefore, classifying wetland types and monitoring their changes are crucial tasks recommended for the province. In this study, wetlands in five pilot sites, distributed across NL, were classified using the integration of aerial imagery, Synthetic Aperture Radar, and optical satellite data. First, each study area was segmented using the object-based method, and then various spectral and polarimetric features were evaluated to select the best features for identifying wetland classes using the Random Forest algorithm. The accuracies of the classifications were assessed by the parameters obtained from confusion matrices, and the overall accuracies varied between 81% and 91%. Moreover, the average producer and user accuracies for wetland classes, considering all pilot sites, were 71% and 72%, respectively. Since the proposed methodology demonstrated high accuracies for wetland classification in different study areas with various ecological characteristics, the application of future classifications in other areas of interest is promising.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".