MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121081157 · doi:10.12000/jr20118

Change Detection Method Based on Fusion Difference Map in Flood Disaster

2020· article· en· W3121081157 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ping-ping Huang, Duan Yinghong, Tan Weixian, Wei Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRemote-Sensing Image Classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChange detectionSynthetic aperture radarFlood mythRemote sensingMarkov random fieldEntropy (arrow of time)Computer scienceCluster analysisSegmentationImage segmentationGeographyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the influence of the environment on the scattering characteristics of ground objects in flooded areas, the false error rate of the detection results increases when performing change detection on Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) images of these areas, which reduces the accuracy of the results obtained for the difference map. To solve this problem, in this paper, we propose a change-detection method based on a fusion difference map. This method combines the regional sensitivity of the entropy difference map with the regional retention of the mean difference map to construct a fusion difference map based on an improved relative entropy and mean value ratio. First, the initial clustering results of the fuzzy local information C-means clustering method are classified by their Pearson correlation coefficients, and second, the secondary classification results are used for the initial image segmentation. Third, the final segmentation results are obtained using the iterative condition model and Markov random field. To verify the flood-disaster-detection performance of the proposed method, we used the second of Europe Remote-Sensing (ERS-2) Satellite data obtained for the Bern area in Switzerland in April and May 1999 and Radarsat remote-sensing data for the Ottawa region in Canada in May and August 1997. We also applied the proposed method to data obtained for the Poyang Lake region of China in June and July 2020, and estimated the disaster area and change trend before and after the flood in Poyang Lake. The experimental results show that the algorithm had a low overall detection error, the false error rate of the detection results were somewhat reduced, and the accuracy of the detection results was improved.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.327
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicRemote-Sensing Image ClassificationFrench-language works237,207