MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3039295076 · doi:10.3390/rs12132095

Wetland Mapping with Landsat 8 OLI, Sentinel-1, ALOS-1 PALSAR, and LiDAR Data in Southern New Brunswick, Canada

2020· article· en· W3039295076 on OpenAlexaffabout
Armand LaRocque, Chafika Phiri, Brigitte Leblon, Francesco Pirotti, Kevin Connor, Alan Hanson

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaGovernment of New BrunswickUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersUniversità degli Studi di Padova
KeywordsWetlandMarshRemote sensingBogEnvironmental scienceShrubLidarThematic mapThematic MapperHydrology (agriculture)Salt marshSatellite imageryCartographyPeatGeologyGeographyEcologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.829
Threshold uncertainty score0.623

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations68
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207