STATE-WIDE WETLAND INVENTORY MAP OF MINNESOTA USING MULTI-SOURCE AND MULTI-TEMPORALREMOTE SENSING DATA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Carbon sequestration coupled with flood mitigation and other functions of wetlands, such as water filtration, coastal protection, biodiversity, and providing recreational spots, make wetland mapping and monitoring important for different countries. Google Earth Engine (GEE) cloud computing platform is becoming a very important tool for lots of environmental studies as it provides a suite of tools and access to data that facilitate large-scale environmental monitoring projects through its powerful parallel processing capabilities. In this study, we use GEE to access multi-source remote sensing datasets and implement an object-based image analysis, and random forest algorithm for the classification of wetlands in the state of Minnesota. Emergent, forested, and scrub-shrub wetland classes, water, as well as urban, forest, and agriculture land cover types were classified using Sentinel-2, Sentinel-1, USGS 3D Elevation Program 10-meter DEM, and gridded soil data. NDVI, EVI, BSI, NDBI, and NDWI spectral indices were calculated from Sentinel-2 imagery, VV and VH polarization channels, and their ratio, as well as span parameters, were calculated from Sentinel-1 imagery, and slope and aspect features were extracted from DEM. Simple Non-Iterative Clustering (SNIC), Gray-Level Co-occurrence Matrix (GLCM), Principal Components Analysis (PCA), and random forest algorithms were implemented to classify wetlands from the GEE platform. Emergent wetlands, water, urban, and agriculture classes performed well with producer accuracies greater than 90%. Sentinel-1, DEM, and soil datasets improve the identification of wetland classes and highlight the importance of multi-source approaches for wetland mapping.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".