Evaluation of the Landsat-Based Canadian Wetland Inventory Map Using Multiple Sources: Challenges of Large-Scale Wetland Classification Using Remote Sensing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first Canadian wetland inventory (CWI) map, which was based on Landsat data, was produced in 2019 using the Google Earth Engine (GEE) big data processing platform. The proposed GEE-based method to create the preliminary CWI map proved to be a cost, time, and computationally efficient approach. Although the initial effort to produce the CWI map was valuable with a 71% overall accuracy (OA), there were several inevitable limitations (e.g., low-quality samples for the training and validation of the map). Therefore, it was important to comprehensively investigate those limitations and develop effective solutions to improve the accuracy of the Landsat-based CWI (L-CWI) map. Over the past year, the L-CWI map was shared with several governmental, academic, environmental nonprofit, and industrial organizations. Subsequently, valuable feedback was received on the accuracy of this product by comparing it with various in situ data, photo-interpreted reference samples, land cover/land use maps, and high-resolution aerial images. It was generally observed that the accuracy of the L-CWI map was lower relative to the other available products. For example, the average OA in four Canadian provinces using in situ data was 60%. Moreover, including reliable in situ data, using an object-based classification method, and adding more optical and synthetic aperture radar datasets were identified as the main practical solutions to improve the CWI map in the future. Finally, limitations and solutions discussed in this study are applicable to any large-scale wetland mapping using remote sensing methods, especially to CWI generation using optical satellite data in GEE.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".