MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

3D MAPPING OF BENTHIC HABITAT USING XGBOOST AND STRUCTURE FROM MOTION PHOTOGRAMMETRY

2023· article· en· W4389395412 on OpenAlexafffund
Salem Morsy, A. B. Yánez Suárez, Katleen Robert

Bibliographic record

VenueISPRS annals of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoral and Marine Ecosystems Studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersOcean Frontier Institute
KeywordsBenthic habitatPhotogrammetryPoint cloudStructure from motionBenthic zoneArtificial intelligenceRandom forestClassifier (UML)HabitatComputer scienceRemote sensingComputer visionGeologyEcologyOceanographyBiologyMotion (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Benthic habitats mapping is essential to the management and conservation of marine ecosystems. The traditional methods of mapping benthic habitats, which involve multibeam data acquisition and manually collecting and annotating imagery data, are time-consuming. However, with technological advances, using machine learning (ML) algorithms with structure-from-motion (SfM) photogrammetry has become a promising approach for mapping benthic habitats accurately and at very high resolutions. This paper explores using SfM photogrammetry and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) classifier for benthic habitat 3D mapping of a vertical wall at the Charlie-Gibbs Fracture Zone in the North Atlantic Ocean. The classification workflow started with extracting frames from video footage. The SfM was then applied to reconstruct the 3D point cloud of the wall. Thereafter, nine geometric features were derived from the 3D point cloud geometry. The XGBoost classifier was then used to classify the vertical wall into rock, sponges, and corals (Case 1 - three classes). In addition, we separated the sponges class into three types of sponges: Demospongiae, Hexactinellida, and other Porifera (Case 2 - five classes). Moreover, we compared the results from XGBoost with the widely used ML classifier, random forest (RF). For Case 2, XGBoost achieved an overall accuracy (OA) of 74.45%, while RF achieved 73.10%. The OA improved by about 10% from both classifiers when the three types of sponges were combined into one class (Case 1). Results showed that the presented 3D mapping of benthic habitat has the potential to provide more detailed and accurate information about marine ecosystems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueISPRS annals of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciencesSame topicCoral and Marine Ecosystems StudiesFrench-language works237,207