Leveraging Google Earth Engine and Semi-Supervised Generative Adversarial Networks to Assess Initial Burn Severity in Forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mapping and monitoring initial burn severity is a critical aspect of forest management and landscape restoration. Recently, supervised learning has achieved great success in evaluating the post-fire forest condition, but plenty of labeled samples are needed to carry out training for supervised learning. However, due to the limitation of accessible labeled data, it is often arduous to put supervised learning into practice in the remote sensing field. In this paper, a novel semi-unsupervised image classification framework by using generative adversarial networks under the Google Earth Engine (GEE) platform is proposed to undertake the burn severity assessment with limited samples. The generative model can produce additional adversarial samples that look like the real samples; therefore, the discriminative model gains better classification capabilities in burn severity assessment with the extra training data provided by the generator. The detailed evaluation and comparative experiments are done in the context of post-fire assessment on eleven forest fires in northern California in the United States. The experimental results demonstrate that our approach significantly outperforms the two other most well-known methods.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".