MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400081700 · doi:10.3390/rs16132361

A Comparison of Satellite Imagery Sources for Automated Detection of Retrogressive Thaw Slumps

2024· article· en· W4400081700 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Heidi Rodenhizer, Yili Yang, Greg Fiske, Stefano Potter, Tiffany Windholz, Andrew Mullen, Jennifer D. Watts, Brendan M. Rogers

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGoddard Space Flight CenterHeising-Simons FoundationNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsRemote sensingGeologySatellite imagerySatelliteEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Retrogressive thaw slumps (RTS) are a form of abrupt permafrost thaw that can rapidly mobilize ancient frozen soil carbon, magnifying the permafrost carbon feedback. However, the magnitude of this effect is uncertain, largely due to limited information about the distribution and extent of RTS across the circumpolar region. Although deep learning methods such as Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) have shown the ability to map RTS from high-resolution satellite imagery (≤10 m), challenges remain in deploying these models across large areas. Imagery selection and procurement remain one of the largest challenges to upscaling RTS mapping projects, as the user must balance cost with resolution and sensor quality. In this study, we compared the performance of three satellite imagery sources that differed in terms of sensor quality and cost in predicting RTS using a Unet3+ CNN model and identified RTS characteristics that impact detectability. Maxar WorldView imagery was the most expensive option, with a ground sample distance of 1.85 m in the multispectral bands (downloaded at 4 m resolution). Planet Labs PlanetScope imagery was a less expensive option with a ground sample distance of approximately 3.0–4.2 m (downloaded at 3 m resolution). Although PlanetScope imagery was downloaded at a higher resolution than WorldView, the radiometric footprint is around 10–12 m, resulting in less crisp imagery. Finally, Sentinel-2 imagery is freely available and has a 10 m resolution. We used 756 RTS polygons from seven sites across Arctic Canada and Siberia in model training and 63 RTS polygons in model testing. The mean IoU of the validation and testing data sets were 0.69 and 0.75 for the WorldView model, 0.70 and 0.71 for the PlanetScope model, and 0.66 and 0.68 for the Sentinel-2 model, respectively. The IoU of the RTS class was nonlinearly related to the RTS Area, showing a strong positive correlation that attenuated as the RTS Area increased. The models were better able to predict RTS that appeared bright on a dark background and were less able to predict RTS that had higher plant cover, indicating that bare ground was a primary way the models detected RTS. Additionally, the models performed less well in wet areas or areas with patchy ground cover. These results indicate that all imagery sources tested here were able to predict larger RTS, but higher-quality imagery allows more accurate detection of smaller RTS.

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)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicClimate change and permafrostFrench-language works237,207