MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4301480362 · doi:10.1080/07038992.2022.2103397

A Method for Fully Automatic Building Footprint Extraction From Remote Sensing Images

2022· article· en· W4301480362 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John Xiong, Tongshu Chen, Minjie Wang, He Jianjun, Lanying Wang, Zhiyong Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Remote Sensing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicRemote Sensing and Land Use
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFootprintOrientation (vector space)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceDeep learningComputer visionEcological footprintSegmentationGeographySustainable development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automatically mapping building footprints has a wide range of applications in many fields. In recent years, the automatic building extraction methods based on deep learning show an absolute advantage over the traditional image segmentation methods due to its high speed and high precision. However, the building footprint extracted by deep learning is just an irregular building mask. There is still much work to be done to transform the building mask into a vector building footprint in the usual sense. One of the most important tasks is to determine the orientation of each side of the building. Most of the current methods are based on the building mask to determine the orientation of each side of the building. The biggest disadvantage of this method is that it completely relies on the building mask which is often unsatisfactory. In this case, the article proposes a method to determine the orientation of each side of the building based on the building mask and line segments, thereby effectively avoiding the danger of relying on the building mask. Experiments show that the proposed method can achieve high-speed and high-precision automatic extraction of building footprints from remote sensing images, saving costs.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Remote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing and Land UseFrench-language works237,207