Wetland Classification with Multi-Angle/Temporal SAR Using Random Forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To better understand and mitigate threats to the long-term health and functioning of wetlands, there is need to establish comprehensive inventorying and monitoring programs. Here, remote sensing data and machine learning techniques that could support or substitute traditional field-based data collection are evaluated. For the Bay of Quinte on Lake Ontario, Canada, different combinations of multi-angle/temporal quad pol RADARSAT-2, simulated compact pol RADARSAT Constellation Mission (RCM), and high and low spatial resolution Digital Elevation and Surface Models (DEM and DSM, respectively) were used to classify six land cover classes with Random Forests: shallow water, marsh, swamp, water, forest, and agriculture/non-forested. Results demonstrate that high accuracies can be achieved with multi-temporal SAR data alone (e.g., user’s and producer’s accuracies ≥90% for a model based on a spring image and a summer image), or via fusion of SAR and DEM and DSM data for single dates/incidence angles (e.g., user’s and producer’s accuracies ≥90% for a model based on a spring image, DEM, and DSM data). For all models based on single SAR images, simulated compact pol data generally achieved lower accuracies than quad pol RADARSAT-2 data. However, it was possible to compensate for observed differences through either multi-temporal/angle data fusion or the inclusion of DEM and DSM data (i.e., as a result, there was not a statistically significant difference between multiple models). With a higher repeat-pass cycle than RADARSAT-2, RCM is expected to be a reliable source of C-band SAR data that will contribute positively to ongoing efforts to inventory wetlands and monitor change in areas containing the same land cover classes evaluated here.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".