MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2924420510 · doi:10.1016/j.jglr.2019.03.005

Evaluating visible derivative spectroscopy by varimax-rotated, principal component analysis of aerial hyperspectral images from the western basin of Lake Erie

2019· article· en· W2924420510 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joseph D. Ortiz, Dulcinea Avouris, Stephen Schiller, Jeffrey C. Luvall, John Lekki, Roger Tokars, Robert C. Anderson, Robert A. Shuchman, Michael J. Sayers, R. H. Becker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Great Lakes Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRemote-Sensing Image Classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOhio Sea Grant College, Ohio State UniversityNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsHyperspectral imagingRemote sensingPrincipal component analysisMultispectral imageSmoothingNoise (video)Imaging spectroscopyResidualComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceEnvironmental scienceComputer visionGeologyImage (mathematics)Algorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Kent State University (KSU) spectral decomposition method provides information about the spectral signals present in multispectral and hyperspectral images. Pre-processing steps that enhance signal to noise ratio (SNR) by 7.37–19.04 times, enables extraction of the environmental signals captured by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Glenn Research Center's, second generation, Hyperspectral imager (HSI2) into multiple, independent components. We have accomplished this by pre-processing of Level 1 HSI2 data to remove stripes from the scene, followed by a combination of spectral and spatial smoothing to further increase the SNR and remove non-Lambertian features, such as waves. On average, the residual stochastic noise removed from the HSI2 images by this method is 5.43 ± 1.42%. The method also enables removal of a spectrally coherent residual atmospheric bias of 4.28 ± 0.48%, ascribed to incomplete atmospheric correction. The total noise isolated from signal by the method is thus <±7% based on analysis of multiple swaths. The method is essentially independent of the order of operations, extracting the same spectral components within error in all cases, spatial patterns that are very similar and explaining nearly identical amounts of information from each image. Based on comparison between multiple swaths the uncertainty in the variance associated with each component averages ±1.69% and is as low as ±0.08% and in all cases <±3.15%.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations26
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Great Lakes ResearchSame topicRemote-Sensing Image ClassificationFrench-language works237,207