Wetland Mapping with Landsat 8 OLI, Sentinel-1, ALOS-1 PALSAR, and LiDAR Data in Southern New Brunswick, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mapping wetlands with high spatial and thematic accuracy is crucial for the management and monitoring of these important ecosystems. Wetland maps in New Brunswick (NB) have traditionally been produced by the visual interpretation of aerial photographs. In this study, we used an alternative method to produce a wetland map for southern New Brunswick, Canada, by classifying a combination of Landsat 8 OLI, ALOS-1 PALSAR, Sentinel-1, and LiDAR-derived topographic metrics with the Random Forests (RF) classifier. The images were acquired in three seasons (spring, summer, and fall) with different water levels and during leaf-off/on periods. The resulting map has eleven wetland classes (open bog, shrub bog, treed bog, open fen, shrub fen, freshwater marsh, coastal marsh, shrub marsh, shrub wetland, forested wetland, and aquatic bed) plus various non-wetland classes. We achieved an overall accuracy classification of 97.67%. We compared 951 in-situ validation sites to the classified image and both the 2106 and 2019 reference maps available through Service New Brunswick. Both reference maps were produced by photo-interpretation of RGB-NIR digital aerial photographs, but the 2019 NB reference also included information from LiDAR-derived surface and ecological metrics. Of these 951 sites, 94.95% were correctly identified on the classified image, while only 63.30% and 80.02% of these sites were correctly identified on the 2016 and 2019 NB reference maps, respectively. If only the 489 wetland validation sites were considered, 96.93% of the sites were correctly identified as a wetland on the classified image, while only 58.69% and 62.17% of the sites were correctly identified as a wetland on the 2016 and 2019 NB reference maps, respectively.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".