WETLAND MAPPING IN NEW BRUNSWICK, CANADA WITH LANDSAT5-TM, ALOS-PALSAR, AND RADARSAT-2 IMAGERY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Several maps of wetland areas in central New Brunswick, Canada, were produced by applying the Random Forests classifier to different combinations of optical Landsat-5 TM images, dual-polarized (HH, HV) Radarsat-2 C-band and Alos-1 PalSAR L-band Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) images and digital elevation data. The resulting maps were compared to 199 GPS wetland sites that were visited between 2012 and 2018 as well as to a combination of two wetland maps currently used by the Province of New Brunswick. The number of correctly identified GPS wetland sites was the highest when both the Alos-PalSAR and Radarsat-2 images are used (97.9%). This percentage of correctly identified sites were well above the accuracy of the official New Brunswick wetland maps (44.7 %). With the best-classified image, the misidentifications were due to wetlands not being classified in the right wetland class, and just one case was a wetland site being classified in a non-wetland class. For the NB wetland map, about a quarter of the wetland validation sites were classified in a non-wetland class, and about the same number of sites were classified in the wrong wetland class.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".