Determination of Segmentation Parameters for Object-Based Remote Sensing Image Analysis from Conventional to Recent Approaches: A Review
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
Remote sensing has evolved through the appearance of several approaches. Object-based image analysis is a compelling approach to land use classification, object detection, and change detection in each environment. This paradigm is based on a critical and fundamental segmentation step. However, this step is highly dependent on the determination of the optimal parameters to be achieved. In this sense, methods have been invented to define the optimal segmentation parameters. This article presents an updated review of methods for defining optimal segmentation parameters. For this purpose, pertinent articles published in the main remote sensing journals from the emergence of the concept of object-based image analysis and segmentation to the present were used. The main aim is to provide a precise and detailed review of the different approaches previously presented. The originality of this review resides in the survey of all methods from conventional to the most recent with a discussion of these approaches. The results show that despite the advances in this field of research, most studies use the manual trial-and-error method. Conversely, state-of-the-art methods tend to determine the optimal parameter per type of geographic object and the adaptive calculation of segmentation parameters. Furthermore, the leading methods identified rely on supervised and unsupervised measures similarly, most of which use homogeneity measures. In contrast, a balance between intra- and inter-segment homogeneity and heterogeneity measures are more relevant. A distinction is made between pre-estimation and posterior parameter estimation methods.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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