MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899809394 · doi:10.1117/1.jrs.12.046020

Object-based urban landcover mapping methodology using high spatial resolution imagery and airborne laser scanning

2018· article· en· W2899809394 on OpenAlexaffabout
David Aled Williams, Giona Matasci, Nicholas C. Coops, Sarah E. Gergel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Remote Sensing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemote sensingMultispectral imageImage resolutionCartographyPixelGeographyGeographic information systemSpatial analysisLidarEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mapping landcover in cities is essential for urban ecology and landuse management, yet urban landcover is often highly heterogeneous at fine spatial scales. Pixel-based approaches are shown to be less successful for effectively mapping urban landcover due to high heterogeneity, with relatively low accuracies reported despite the use of high spatial resolution optical imagery. Alternatively, geographic object-based image analysis (GEOBIA) has yielded higher accuracies across a range of urban applications. We combine three-dimensional (3-D) information from airborne laser scanning (ALS) data with RapidEye high-spatial-resolution imagery in a GEOBIA approach to classify urban landcover in a large metropolitan region in Vancouver, Canada. Results indicate that 12 urban classes could be accurately mapped at 2-m spatial resolution across 150,000 ha with an overall accuracy of 88% (kappa 0.87). Though 5-m RapidEye multispectral pixels were often mixed in heterogeneous urban areas, the additional insight provided by the 3-D ALS information enabled accurate classification of fine spatial objects such as street trees and single-family dwellings.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations19
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Remote SensingSame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207