MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3108243285 · doi:10.3390/rs12233850

Remote Sensing of Lake Sediment Core Particle Size Using Hyperspectral Image Analysis

2020· article· en· W3108243285 on OpenAlexafffund
Hamid Ghanbari, Olivier Jacques, Marc‐Élie Adaïmé, Irene Gregory‐Eaves, Dermot Antoniades

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalUniversité Laval
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGroupe de recherche interuniversitaire en limnologie
KeywordsHyperspectral imagingRandom forestRemote sensingMean squared errorPartial least squares regressionEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceMathematicsGeologyStatisticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hyperspectral imaging has recently emerged in the geosciences as a technology that provides rapid, accurate, and high-resolution information from lake sediment cores. Here we introduce a new methodology to infer particle size distribution, an insightful proxy that tracks past changes in aquatic ecosystems and their catchments, from laboratory hyperspectral images of lake sediment cores. The proposed methodology includes data preparation, spectral preprocessing and transformation, variable selection, and model fitting. We evaluated random forest regression and other commonly used statistical methods to find the best model for particle size determination. We tested the performance of combinations of spectral transformation techniques, including absorbance, continuum removal, and first and second derivatives of the reflectance and absorbance, along with different regression models including partial least squares, multiple linear regression, principal component regression, and support vector regression, and evaluated the resulting root mean square error (RMSE), R-squared, and mean relative error (MRE). Our results show that a random forest regression model built on spectra absorbance significantly outperforms all other models. The new workflow demonstrated herein represents a much-improved method for generating inferences from hyperspectral imagery, which opens many new opportunities for advancing the study of sediment archives.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.829
Threshold uncertainty score0.886

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207