Identification and Evaluation of Urban Construction Waste with VHR Remote Sensing Using Multi-Feature Analysis and a Hierarchical Segmentation Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With rapid urbanization, the disposal and management of urban construction waste have become the main concerns of urban management. The distribution of urban construction waste is characterized by its wide range, irregularity, and ease of confusion with the surrounding ground objects, such as bare soil, buildings, and vegetation. Therefore, it is difficult to extract and identify information related to urban construction waste by using the traditional single spectral feature analysis method due to the problem of spectral confusion between construction waste and the surrounding ground objects, especially in the context of very-high-resolution (VHR) remote sensing images. Considering the multi-feature analysis method for VHR remote sensing images, we propose an optimal method that combines morphological indexing and hierarchical segmentation to extract the information on urban construction waste in VHR images. By comparing the differences between construction waste and the surrounding ground objects in terms of the spectrum, geometry, texture, and other features, we selected an optimal feature subset to improve the separability of the construction waste and other objects; then, we established a classification model of knowledge rules to achieve the rapid and accurate extraction of construction waste information. We also chose two experimental areas of Beijing to validate our algorithm. By using construction waste separability quality evaluation indexes, the identification accuracy of construction waste in the two study areas was determined to be 96.6% and 96.2%, the separability indexes of the construction waste and buildings reached 1.000, and the separability indexes of the construction waste and vegetation reached 1.000 and 0.818. The experimental results show that our method can accurately identify the exposed construction waste and construction waste covered with a dust screen, and it can effectively solve the problem of spectral confusion between the construction waste and the bare soil, buildings, and vegetation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".