Marine Habitat Mapping Using Bathymetric LiDAR Data: A Case Study from Bonne Bay, Newfoundland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Marine habitats provide various benefits to the environment and humans. In this regard, an accurate marine habitat map is an important component of effective marine management. Newfoundland’s coastal area is covered by different marine habitats, which should be correctly mapped using advanced technologies, such as remote sensing methods. In this study, bathymetric Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data were applied to accurately discriminate different habitat types in Bonne Bay, Newfoundland. To this end, the LiDAR intensity image was employed along with an object-based Random Forest (RF) algorithm. Two types of habitat classifications were produced: a two-class map (i.e., Vegetation and Non-Vegetation) and a five-class map (i.e., Eelgrass, Macroalgae, Rockweed, Fine Sediment, and Gravel/Cobble). It was observed that the accuracies of the produced habitat maps were reasonable considering the existing challenges, such as the error of the LiDAR data and lacking enough in situ samples for some of the classes such as macroalgae. The overall classification accuracies for the two-class and five-class maps were 87% and 80%, respectively, indicating the high capability of the developed machine learning model for future marine habitat mapping studies. The results also showed that Eelgrass, Fine Sediment, Gravel/Cobble, Macroalgae, and Rockweed cover 22.4% (3.66 km2), 51.4% (8.39 km2), 13.5% (2.21 km2), 6.9% (1.12 km2), and 5.8% (0.95 km2) of the study area, respectively.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".