MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399290358 · doi:10.3390/rs16112011

Fusion of Google Street View, LiDAR, and Orthophoto Classifications Using Ranking Classes Based on F1 Score for Building Land-Use Type Detection

2024· article· en· W4399290358 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Nafiseh Ghasemian Sorboni, Jinfei Wang, Mohammad Reza Najafi

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAutomated Road and Building Extraction
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersAlliance de recherche numérique du Canada
KeywordsOrthophotoRanking (information retrieval)LidarComputer scienceRemote sensingGeographyInformation retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Building land-use type classification using earth observation data is essential for urban planning and emergency management. Municipalities usually do not hold a detailed record of building land-use types in their jurisdictions, and there is a significant need for a detailed classification of this data. Earth observation data can be beneficial in this regard, because of their availability and requiring a reduced amount of fieldwork. In this work, we imported Google Street View (GSV), light detection and ranging-derived (LiDAR-derived) features, and orthophoto images to deep learning (DL) models. The DL models were trained on building land-use type data for the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). The data was created using building land-use type labels from OpenStreetMap (OSM) and web scraping. Then, we classified buildings into apartment, house, industrial, institutional, mixed residential/commercial, office building, retail, and other. Three DL-derived classification maps from GSV, LiDAR, and orthophoto images were combined at the decision level using the proposed ranking classes based on the F1 score method. For comparison, the classifiers were combined using fuzzy fusion as well. The results of two independent case studies, Vancouver and Fort Worth, showed that the proposed fusion method could achieve an overall accuracy of 75%, up to 8% higher than the previous study using CNNs and the same ground truth data. Also, the results showed that while mixed residential/commercial buildings were correctly detected using GSV images, the DL models confused many houses in the GTA with mixed residential/commercial because of their similar appearance in GSV images.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicAutomated Road and Building ExtractionFrench-language works237,207