MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

APPLICATION OF SEMANTIC SEGMENTATION WITH FEW LABELS IN THE DETECTION OF WATER BODIES FROM PERUSAT-1 SATELLITE’S IMAGES

2020· article· en· W3047113081 on OpenAlexaff
Jessenia Gonzalez, Kris Sankaran, V. A. Ayma, César Beltrán

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œinternational archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences/International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute
FundersServicio Nacional de Capacitación para la Industria de la Construcción
KeywordsComputer scienceConvolutional neural networkSatelliteSegmentationTask (project management)Artificial intelligenceTransfer of learningProcess (computing)Remote sensingFlood mythPattern recognition (psychology)Computer visionGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Remote sensing is widely used to monitor earth surfaces with the main objective of extracting information from it. Such is the case of water surface, which is one of the most affected extensions when flood events occur, and its monitoring helps in the analysis of detecting such affected areas, considering that adequately defining water surfaces is one of the biggest problems that Peruvian authorities are concerned with. In this regard, semiautomatic mapping methods improve this monitoring, but this process remains a time-consuming task and into the subjectivity of the experts.In this work, we present a new approach for segmenting water surfaces from satellite images based on the application of convolutional neural networks. First, we explore the application of a U-Net model and then a transfer knowledge-based model. Our results show that both approaches are comparable when trained using an 680-labelled satellite image dataset; however, as the number of training samples is reduced, the performance of the transfer knowledge-based model, which combines high and very high image resolution characteristics, is improved.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œinternational archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences/International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences→Same topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications→French-language works237,207→