MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965516077 · doi:10.5897/jgrp.9000034

Comparison of object-based and pixel based infrared airborne image classification methods using DEM thematic layer

2007· article· en· W2965516077 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Abubakr Dehvari, Richard J. Heck

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geography and Regional Planning · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRemote-Sensing Image Classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic mapLand coverPixelObject (grammar)GeographyRemote sensingArtificial intelligenceSegmentationCartographyObject basedContextual image classificationComputer scienceCover (algebra)Pattern recognition (psychology)Computer visionImage (mathematics)Land useEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An airborne infrared image was used to produce a map of land cover types in the Eastern shore of Lake Huron, Ontario province of Canada. Maximum likelihood pixel-based and nearest neighbor object-based methods were used in this approach. Land cover classes that obtained traditional pixel-based classification approaches showed a salt-and-pepper effect having the lowest producer accuracy (59.5%). Overall classification results increased up to 80% in object- based approach but still failed to distinguish buildings and creeks. Contours and DEM thematic layers enhanced classification results to a higher level (94%) and increased the producer accuracy for buildings and creek by creating reasonable objects in segmentation process in the object-based approach.   Key words: Infrared image classification, pixel-based, object-based, DEM thematic layer, land cover mapping.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.292 · 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
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

Citations28
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geography and Regional PlanningSame topicRemote-Sensing Image ClassificationFrench-language works237,207