Algorithms and Predictors for Land Cover Classification of Polar Deserts: A Case Study Highlighting Challenges and Recommendations for Future Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of remote sensing for developing land cover maps in the Arctic has grown considerably in the last two decades, especially for monitoring the effects of climate change. The main challenge is to link information extracted from satellite imagery to ground covers due to the fine-scale spatial heterogeneity of Arctic ecosystems. There is currently no commonly accepted methodological scheme for high-latitude land cover mapping, but the use of remote sensing in Arctic ecosystem mapping would benefit from a coordinated sharing of lessons learned and best practices. Here, we aimed to produce a highly accurate land cover map of the surroundings of the Canadian Forces Station Alert, a polar desert on the northeastern tip of Ellesmere Island (Nunavut, Canada) by testing different predictors and classifiers. To account for the effect of the bare soil background and water limitations that are omnipresent at these latitudes, we included as predictors soil-adjusted vegetation indices and several hydrological predictors related to waterbodies and snowbanks. We compared the results obtained from an ensemble classifier based on a majority voting algorithm to eight commonly used classifiers. The distance to the nearest snowbank and soil-adjusted indices were the top predictors allowing the discrimination of land cover classes in our study area. The overall accuracy of the classifiers ranged between 75 and 88%, with the ensemble classifier also yielding a high accuracy (85%) and producing less bias than the individual classifiers. Some challenges remained, such as shadows created by boulders and snow covered by soil material. We provide recommendations for further improving classification methodology in the High Arctic, which is important for the monitoring of Arctic ecosystems exposed to ongoing polar amplification.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".