Comparing of Landsat 8 and Sentinel 2A using Water Extraction Indexes over Volta River
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Remote sensing data are most often used in water bodies’ extraction studies and the type of remote sensing data used also play a crucial role on the accuracy of the extracted water features. The performance of the proposed water indexes among the various satellite images is not well documented in literature. The proposed water indexes were initially developed with a particular type of data and with advancement and introduction of new satellite images especially Landsat 8 and Sentinel, therefore the need to test the level of performance of these water indexes as new image datasets emerged. Landsat 8 and Sentinel 2A image of part Volta River was used. The water indexes were performed and then ISODATA unsupervised classification was done. The overall accuracy and kappa coefficient values range from 98.0% to 99.8% and 0.94 to 0.98 respectively. Most of water bodies enhancement indexes work better on Sentinel 2A than on Landsat 8. Among the Landsat based water bodies enhancement ISODATA unsupervised classification, the modified normalized water difference index (MNDWI) and normalized water difference index (NDWI) were the best classifier while for Sentinel 2A, the MNDWI and the automatic water extraction index (AWEI_nsh) were the optimal classifier. The least performed classifier for both Landsat 8 and Sentinel 2A was the automatic water extraction index (AWEI_sh). The modified normalized water difference index (MNDWI) has proved to be the universal water bodies enhancement index because of its performance on both the Landsat 8 and Sentinel 2A image.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".