Object-Based Approach Using Very High Spatial Resolution 16-Band WorldView-3 and LiDAR Data for Tree Species Classification in a Broadleaf Forest in Quebec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Species identification in Quebec, Canada, is usually performed with photo-interpretation at the stand level, and often results in a lack of precision which affects forest management. Very high spatial resolution imagery, such as WorldView-3 and Light Detection and Ranging have the potential to overcome this issue. The main objective of this study is to map 11 tree species at the tree level using an object-based approach. For modeling, 240 variables were derived from WorldView-3 with pixel-based and arithmetic feature calculation techniques. A global approach (11 species) was compared to a hierarchical approach at two levels: (1) tree type (broadleaf/conifer) and (2) individual broadleaf (five) and conifer (six) species. Five different model techniques were compared: support vector machine, classification and regression tree, random forest (RF), k-nearest neighbors, and linear discriminant analysis. Each model was assessed using 16-band or first 8-band derived variables, with the results indicating higher precision for the RF technique. Higher accuracies were found using 16-band instead of 8-band derived variables for the global approach (overall accuracy (OA): 75% vs. 71%, Kappa index of agreement (KIA): 0.72 vs. 0.67) and tree type level (OA: 99% vs. 97%, KIA: 0.97 vs. 0.95). For broadleaf individual species, higher accuracy was found using first 8-band derived variables (OA: 70% vs. 68%, KIA: 0.63 vs. 0.60). No distinction was found for individual conifer species (OA: 94%, KIA: 0.93). This paper demonstrates that a hierarchical classification approach gives better results for conifer species and that using an 8-band WorldView-3 instead of a 16-band is sufficient.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".