Spatial response resampling (SR2): Accounting for the spatial point spread function in hyperspectral image resampling
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the increased availability of hyperspectral imaging (HSI) data at various scales (0.03–30 m), the role of simulation is becoming increasingly important in data analysis and applications. There are few commercially available tools to spatially degrade imagery based on the spatial response of a coarser resolution sensor. Instead, HSI data are typically spatially degraded using nearest neighbor, pixel aggregate or cubic convolution approaches. Without accounting for the spatial response of the simulated sensor, these approaches yield unrealistically sharp images. This article describes the spatial response resampling (SR 2 ) workflow, a novel approach to degrade georeferenced raster HSI data based on the spatial response of a coarser resolution sensor. The workflow is open source and widely available for personal, academic or commercial use with no restrictions. The importance of the SR 2 workflow is shown with three practical applications (data cross-validation, flight planning and data fusion of separate VNIR and SWIR images). •The SR 2 workflow derives the point spread function of a specified HSI sensor based on nominal data acquisition parameters (e.g., integration time, altitude, speed), convolving it with a finer resolution HSI dataset for data simulation. •To make the workflow approachable for end users, we provide a MATLAB function that implements the SR 2 methodology.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it