MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3173072849

Change Detection in Ottawa City Synthetic Aperture Radar Remote Sensing Images based on DWT Fuzzy C Means Clustering

2021· article· en· W3173072849 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. Thrisul kumar, G.Venu Ratna Kumari, M. Satish kumar, K. Pradeep Vinaik, P. Bhagya Raju

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the Romanian Society for Cell Biology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Image Fusion Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImage fusionArtificial intelligenceRemote sensingSynthetic aperture radarComputer scienceComputer visionWaveletFuzzy logicSensitivity (control systems)Ground truthWavelet transformDiscrete wavelet transformCluster analysisImage (mathematics)Pattern recognition (psychology)GeographyEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The radiometric, spectral, spatial and temporal resolutions of remote sensing data have a major effect on the success rate of the applications that deploy remote sensing applications. In the traditional works, the issues related to remote sensing images are usually signified for particular kinds of sensors (that is, active or passive). While deploying passive sensors in remote sensing(e.g., optical images), differentiated image is generally calculated and a suitable measure of change is provided. On the other hand, in rainy or cloudy regions, the exploitation of optical images tends to be limited. From this viewpoint, Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) imaging can be regarded as the most excellent substitute for remote sensing applications. In this regard, two multitemporal SAR images have been taken for this fusion process. Usually, the major need of image fusion is to extract the information from multiple images and convert them into one image with all information in individual images. To perform this image fusion multiple wavelet coefficients have been applied in Discrete Wavelet Transform (DWT) such as Daubchies wavelet coefficients (daubchies2) have been used. After performing this fusion, fused image is segmented as changed regions and unchanged regions based on Fuzzy C Means clustering (FCM). the segmented image is compared with the ground truth image the outcome is measured in terms measuring parameters such as accuracy, precision, sensitivity and FDR.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score0.683

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the Romanian Society for Cell BiologySame topicAdvanced Image Fusion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207