MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281933899 · doi:10.3390/rs14112654

Urban Land Use and Land Cover Change Analysis Using Random Forest Classification of Landsat Time Series

2022· article· en· W4281933899 on OpenAlexaff
Saeid B. Amini, Mohsen Saber, Hamidreza Rabiei‐Dastjerdi, Saeid Homayouni

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersMarie Curie
KeywordsLand coverRemote sensingSeries (stratigraphy)Land useEnvironmental sciencePhysical geographyGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Efficient implementation of remote sensing image classification can facilitate the extraction of spatiotemporal information for land use and land cover (LULC) classification. Mapping LULC change can pave the way to investigate the impacts of different socioeconomic and environmental factors on the Earth’s surface. This study presents an algorithm that uses Landsat time-series data to analyze LULC change. We applied the Random Forest (RF) classifier, a robust classification method, in the Google Earth Engine (GEE) using imagery from Landsat 5, 7, and 8 as inputs for the 1985 to 2019 period. We also explored the performance of the pan-sharpening algorithm on Landsat bands besides the impact of different image compositions to produce a high-quality LULC map. We used a statistical pan-sharpening algorithm to increase multispectral Landsat bands’ (Landsat 7–9) spatial resolution from 30 m to 15 m. In addition, we checked the impact of different image compositions based on several spectral indices and other auxiliary data such as digital elevation model (DEM) and land surface temperature (LST) on final classification accuracy based on several spectral indices and other auxiliary data on final classification accuracy. We compared the classification result of our proposed method and the Copernicus Global Land Cover Layers (CGLCL) map to verify the algorithm. The results show that: (1) Using pan-sharpened top-of-atmosphere (TOA) Landsat products can produce more accurate results for classification instead of using surface reflectance (SR) alone; (2) LST and DEM are essential features in classification, and using them can increase final accuracy; (3) the proposed algorithm produced higher accuracy (94.438% overall accuracy (OA), 0.93 for Kappa, and 0.93 for F1-score) than CGLCL map (84.4% OA, 0.79 for Kappa, and 0.50 for F1-score) in 2019; (4) the total agreement between the classification results and the test data exceeds 90% (93.37–97.6%), 0.9 (0.91–0.96), and 0.85 (0.86–0.95) for OA, Kappa values, and F1-score, respectively, which is acceptable in both overall and Kappa accuracy. Moreover, we provide a code repository that allows classifying Landsat 4, 5, 7, and 8 within GEE. This method can be quickly and easily applied to other regions of interest for LULC 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations318
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207