Multi‐Source Mapping of Peatland Types Using Sentinel‐1, Sentinel‐2, and Terrain Derivatives—A Comparison Between Five High‐Latitude Landscapes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mapping wetland types in northern‐latitude regions with Earth Observation (EO) data is important for several practical and scientific applications, but at the same time challenging due to the variability and dynamic nature in wetland features introduced by differences in geophysical conditions. The objective of this study was to better understand the ability of Sentinel‐1 radar data, Sentinel‐2 optical data and terrain derivatives derived from Copernicus digital elevation model to distinguish three main peatland types, two upland classes, and surface water, in five contrasting landscapes located in the northern parts of Alaska, Canada and Scandinavia. The study also investigated the potential benefits for classification accuracy of using regional classification models constructed from region‐specific training data compared to a global classification model based on pooled reference data from all five sites. Overall, the results show high promise for classifying peatland types and the three other land cover classes using the fusion approach that combined all three EO data sources (Sentinel‐1, Sentinel‐2 and terrain derivatives). Overall accuracy for the individual sites ranged between 79.7% and 90.3%. Class specific accuracies for the peatland types were also high overall but differed between the five sites as well as between the three classes bog, fen and swamp. A key finding is that regional classification models consistently outperformed the global classification model by producing significantly higher classification accuracies for all five sites. This suggests for progress in identifying effective approaches for continental scale peatland mapping to improve scaling of for example, hydrological‐ and greenhouse gas‐related processes in Earth system models.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".