Comparing Pixel- and Object-Based Approaches for Classifying Multispectral Drone Imagery of a Salt Marsh Restoration and Reference Site
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monitoring salt marshes with remote sensing is necessary to evaluate their state and restoration. Determining appropriate techniques for this can be overwhelming. Our study provides insight into whether a pixel- or object-based Random Forest classification approach is best for mapping vegetation in north temperate salt marshes. We used input variables from drone images (raw reflectances, vegetation indices, and textural features) acquired in June, July, and August 2021 of a salt marsh restoration and reference site in Aulac, New Brunswick, Canada. We also investigated the importance of input variables and whether using landcover classes representing areas of change was a practical way to evaluate variation in the monthly images. Our results indicated that (1) the classifiers achieved overall validation accuracies of 91.1–95.2%; (2) pixel-based classifiers outperformed object-based classifiers by 1.3–2.0%; (3) input variables extracted from the August images were more important than those extracted from the June and July images; (4) certain raw reflectances, vegetation indices, and textural features were among the most important variables; and (5) classes that changed temporally were mapped with user’s and producer’s validation accuracies of 86.7–100.0%. Knowledge gained during this study will inform assessments of salt marsh restoration trajectories spanning multiple years.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".