MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2760438440 · doi:10.3390/rs9100972

Haze Removal Based on a Fully Automated and Improved Haze Optimized Transformation for Landsat Imagery over Land

2017· article· en· W2760438440 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lixin Sun, R. Latifovic, Darren Pouliot

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Image Fusion Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsHazeRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceSatelliteSatellite imageryComputer scienceTransformation (genetics)MeteorologyGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optical satellite imagery is often contaminated by the persistent presence of clouds and atmospheric haze. Without an effective method for removing this contamination, most optical remote sensing applications are less reliable. In this research, a methodology has been developed to fully automate and improve the Haze Optimized Transformation (HOT)-based haze removal. The method is referred to as AutoHOT and characterized with three notable features: a fully automated HOT process, a novel HOT image post-processing tool and a class-based HOT radiometric adjustment method. The performances of AutoHOT in haze detection and compensation were evaluated through three experiments with one Landsat-5 TM, one Landsat-7 ETM+ and eight Landsat-8 OLI scenes that encompass diverse landscapes and atmospheric haze conditions. The first experiment confirms that AutoHOT is robust and effective for haze detection. The average overall, user’s and producer’s accuracies of AutoHOT in haze detection can reach 96.4%, 97.6% and 97.5%, respectively. The second and third experiments demonstrate that AutoHOT can not only accurately characterize the haze intensities but also improve dehazed results, especially for brighter targets, compared to traditional HOT radiometric adjustment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicAdvanced Image Fusion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207