MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391883779 · doi:10.3390/min14020202

Machine Learning-Based Lithological Mapping from ASTER Remote-Sensing Imagery

2024· article· en· W4391883779 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerals · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdvanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection RadiometerGeologyRemote sensingSupport vector machineRandom forestGradient boostingMineral explorationArtificial intelligenceSatellite imageryComputer scienceDigital elevation modelGeochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurately mapping lithological features is essential for geological surveys and the exploration of mineral resources. Remote-sensing images have been widely used to extract information about mineralized alteration zones due to their cost-effectiveness and potential for being widely applied. Automated methods, such as machine-learning algorithms, for lithological mapping using satellite imagery have also received attention. This study aims to map lithologies and minerals indirectly through machine-learning algorithms using advanced spaceborne thermal emission and reflection radiometer (ASTER) remote-sensing data. The capabilities of several machine-learning (ML) algorithms were evaluated for lithological mapping, including random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM), gradient boosting (GB), extreme gradient boosting (XGB), and a deep-learning artificial neural network (ANN). These methods were applied to ASTER imagery of the Sar-Cheshmeh copper mining region of Kerman Province, in southern Iran. First, several spectral features that were extracted from ASTER bands were used as input data. Second, correlation coefficients between the original spectral bands and features were extracted. The importance of the random forest features (RF’s feature importance) was subsequently computed, and features with less importance were removed. Finally, the remained features were given to the models as input data in the second scenario. Accuracy assessments were performed for lithological classes in the study region, including Sar-Cheshmeh porphyry, quartz eye, late fine porphyry, hornblende dike, granodiorite, feldspar dike, biotite dike, andesite, and alluvium. The overall accuracy results of lithological mapping showed that ML-based algorithms without feature extraction have the highest accuracy. The overall accuracy percentages for ML-based algorithms without conducting feature extraction were 84%, 85%, 80%, 82%, and 80% for RF, SVM, GB, XGB, and ANN, respectively. The results of this study would be of great interest to geologists for lithological mapping and mineral exploration, particularly for selecting appropriate ML-based techniques to be implemented in similar regions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.840
Threshold uncertainty score0.612

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.214 · 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