MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792816540 · doi:10.3390/rs10020231

The Correlation Coefficient as a Simple Tool for the Localization of Errors in Spectroscopic Imaging Data

2018· article· en· W2792816540 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRemote-Sensing Image Classification
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperspectral imagingRemote sensingPixelCorrelation coefficientSensitivity (control systems)Imaging spectrometerNoise (video)Region of interestSpectrometerComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceOpticsArtificial intelligencePhysicsMathematicsGeologyImage (mathematics)Statistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The correlation coefficient (CC) was substantiated as a simple, yet robust statistical tool in the quality assessment of hyperspectral imaging (HSI) data. The sensitivity of the metric was also characterized with respect to artificially-induced errors. The CC was found to be sensitive to spectral shifts and single feature modifications in hyperspectral ground data despite the high, artificially-induced, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of 100:1. The study evaluated eight airborne hyperspectral images that varied in acquisition spectrometer, acquisition date and processing methodology. For each image, we identified a uniform ground target region of interest (ROI) that was comprised of a single asphalt road pixel from each column within the sensor field-of-view (FOV). A CC was calculated between the spectra from each of the pixels in the ROI and the data from the center pixel. Potential errors were located by reductions in the CCs below a designated threshold, which was derived from the results of the sensitivity tests. The spectral range associated with each error was established using a windowing technique where the CCs were recalculated after removing the spectral data within various windows. Errors were isolated in the spectral window that removed the previously-identified reductions in the CCs. Finer errors were detected by calculating the CCs across the ROI in the spectral range surrounding various atmospheric absorption features. Despite only observing deviations in the CCs from the 3rd–6th decimal places, non-trivial errors were detected in the imagery. An error was detected within a single band of the shortwave infrared imagery. Errors were also observed throughout the visible-near-infrared imagery, especially in the blue end. With this methodology, it was possible to immediately gauge the spectral consistency of the HSI data across the FOV. Consequently, the effectiveness of various processing methodologies and the spectral consistency of the imaging spectrometers themselves could be studied. Overall, the research highlights the utility of the CC as a simple, low monetary cost, analytical tool for the localization of errors in spectroscopic imaging data.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.260 · 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