Limiting the Collection of Ground Truth Data for Land Use and Land Cover Maps with Machine Learning Algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Land use and land cover (LULC) classification maps help understand the state and trends of agricultural production and provide insights for applications in environmental monitoring. One of the major downfalls of the LULC technique is inherently linked to its need for ground truth data to cross-validate maps. This paper aimed at evaluating the efficiency of machine learning (ML) in limiting the use of ground truth data for LULC maps. This was accomplished by (1) extracting reliable LULC information from Sentinel-2 and Landsat-8 s images, (2) generating remote sensing indices used to train ML algorithms, and (3) comparing the results with ground truth data. The remote sensing indices that were tested include the difference vegetation index (DVI), the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), the normalized built-up index (NDBI), the urban index (UI), and the normalized bare land index (NBLI). Extracted vegetation indices were evaluated on three ML algorithms, namely, random forest (RF), k-nearest neighbour (K-NN), and k dimensional-tree (KD-Tree). The accuracy of these algorithms was assessed with standard statistical measures and ground truth data randomly collected in Prince Edward Island, Canada. Results showed that high kappa coefficient values were achieved by K-NN (82% and 74%), KD-Tree (80% and 78%), and RF (83% and 73%) for Sentinel-2A and Landsat-8 imagery, respectively. RF was a better classifier than K-NN and KD-Tree and had the highest overall accuracy with Sentinel-2A satellite images (92%). This approach provides the basis for limiting the collection of ground truth data and thus reduces the labour cost, time, and resources needed to collect ground truth data for LULC maps.
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 | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".