MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990370456 · doi:10.1080/20964471.2019.1690404

A generalized supervised classification scheme to produce provincial wetland inventory maps: an application of Google Earth Engine for big geo data processing

2019· article· en· W2990370456 on OpenAlexaffabout
Meisam Amani, Brian Brisco, Majid Afshar, S. Mohammad Mirmazloumi, Sahel Mahdavi, Sayyed Mohammad Javad Mirzadeh, Weimin Huang, Jean Granger

Bibliographic record

VenueBig Earth Data · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsCentre For Cold Ocean Resources EngineeringMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWetlandScale (ratio)Field (mathematics)Remote sensingGeographyBig dataSatellite imageryComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceCartographyEnvironmental resource managementData miningEcologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wetlands are important natural resources due to their numerous ecological services. Consequently, identifying their locations and extents is imperative. The stability, repeatability, cost-effectiveness, multi-scale coverage, and proper spatial resolution imagery of satellites provide a valuable opportunity for their use in various large-scale applications, such as provincial wetland mapping. To do so, it is required to (1) process and classify big geo data (i.e. a large amount of satellite datasets) in a time- and computationally-efficient approach and (2) collect a large amount of field samples. In this study, Google Earth Engine (GEE) and machine learning algorithms were utilized to process thousands of remote sensing images and produce provincial wetland inventory maps of the three Canadian provinces of Manitoba, Quebec, and Newfoundland and Labrador (NL). Additionally, using GEE, a generalized supervised classification method is proposed to produce a regional wetland map from a large area (e.g., a province) when lacking field samples. In fact, using the field data from only Manitoba and assuming that all wetlands in Canada have similar characteristics, the wetland maps were generated for the other two provinces. The overall classification accuracies for Manitoba, Quebec, and NL were 84%, 78%, and 82%, respectively, indicating the high potential of the proposed method for aiding provincial wetland inventory systems.

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)0.001
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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations102
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBig Earth DataSame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207