Wetland Mapping Using Multi-Spectral Satellite Imagery and Deep Convolutional Neural Networks: A Case Study in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the advent of powerful parallel processing tools, including modern Graphics Processing Units (GPU), new deep learning algorithms, such as Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), have significantly altered the state-of-the-art algorithms in satellite classification of complex environments. Recent studies have demonstrated that the generic feature maps extracted from CNNs are incredibly effective in wetland classification. The main drawback of very deep CNNs is described as structurally complex, causing the need for extensive training data. To address deep Convolutional Neural Network’s limitations, a timely and computationally efficient CNN architecture is proposed in this paper. The results of the proposed model were compared to other well-known CNNs (i.e., GoogleNet and SqueezeNet) and several machine learning algorithms, including Random Forest, Gaussian Naïve Bayes, and the Bayesian Optimized Tree. Results showed while significantly reduced the training time, the proposed deep learning method outperformed GoogleNet and SqueezeNet by about 12.71% and 12.2% in terms of mean overall accuracy, respectively. The classification results shown that the accuracy of wetland classes (fen, marsh, swamp, and shallow water) were significantly improved by applying the proposed CNN method.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".