High Resolution Satellite Data for MappingLanduse/Land-cover in the Rural-Urban Fringeof the Greater Toronto Area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Landuse and land-cover classification from high resolution imagery has been seen as challenging by theremote sensing society. The high variability from pixel to pixel makes the use of pixel-based classifiersobsolete. Object-based classifiers along with rule-based descriptors can be used to overcome theseproblems because they consider the spatial distribution and topological relationships of the pixels. Theidentification of the landuse/land-cover classes based on objects and their spatial relationships can lead toa better classification results. The combination through fusion techniques of images with differentresolutions can also be used to improve landuse/land-cover classification.The objective of this research is to evaluate pixel- and object-based approaches for landuse/land-coverclassification and to identify which approach gives better results for high resolution imagery.QuickBird imagery covering the town of Richmond Hill, in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), Ontario,Canada were used for landuse/land-cover classification. The classes considered were: water, low-densityresidential, transportation, contruction site, forest, golf course, corn, wheat, fallow, rapeseeds, pasture,parks, new low-density residential, commercial and industrial. The fusion techniques were used to mergePan and MS images were performed as an initial step: RGB-HIS using PCI Geomatica and wavelettransform with IHS using Matlab and Erdas Imagery. Pixel-based classifiers, such as MLC and Contextualwere compared to the object- and rule-based approach implemented in eCognition. It was found that thebest pixel-based classification results were obtained from MLC using 1-4 channels (kappa coefficient0.80662 and overall accuracy 83.71%). However, the classification from Wavelet-IHS Transformationfusion result implemented in Matlab with MLC (kappa coefficient 0.77637 and overall accuracy 81.10%)showed a balance between low loss of spectral information and the improved classification for objects notclearly defined in the original MS imagery.For the object-based and rule-based approach, it was found that a segmentation of 4 levels with theidentification of major land-cover types in the smallest scale and the integration of rules for theidentification of landuse classes in the other levels led to the best classification result for high-resolutionimagery (kappa coefficient 0.8565, and overall accuracy 86.70%). However, rules that describe classessuch as ‘parks’, ‘commercial’ and ‘industrial’ sites have to be improved in order to increase theidentification of these areas
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".