The Integration of Multi-Source Remotely Sensed Data with Hierarchically Based Classification Approaches in Support of the Classification of Wetlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methodologies were developed to classify wetlands (Open Bog, Treed Bog, Open Fen, Treed Fen, and Swamps) from remotely sensed data using advanced classification algorithms through two hierarchical approaches. The data utilized included multispectral optical and thermal data (Landsat-5, and Landsat-8), radar imagery (Sentinel-1), and a digital elevation model. Goals were to determine the best way to combine imagery to classify wetlands through hierarchically based classification approaches to produce more accurate and efficient maps compared to standard classification. Algorithms used were Random Forest (RF), and Naïve Bayes. A hierarchically based RF classification methodology produced the most accurate classification result (91.94%). The hierarchically based approaches also improved classification accuracies for low-quality data, as defined through feature analysis, when compared to a nonhierarchical classifier. The hierarchical approaches also produced a significant increase in classification accuracy for the Naïve Bayes classifier versus the standard approach (∼12% increase) while not significantly increasing computation time – comparable in accuracy to the RF tests for around 20% the computational effort. Preselection of spectral bands, polarizations and other input parameters (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index, Normalized Difference Water Index, albedo, slope, etc.) using log-normal or RF variable importance analysis was very effective at identifying low-quality features and features which were of higher quality.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".