MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400880037 · doi:10.3390/rs16142654

A Combination of Remote Sensing Datasets for Coastal Marine Habitat Mapping Using Random Forest Algorithm in Pistolet Bay, Canada

2024· article· en· W4400880037 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sahel Mahdavi, Meisam Amani, Saeid Parsian, Candace MacDonald, Michael Teasdale, Justin So, Fan Zhang, Mardi Gullage

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaNatural Resources CanadaUniversity of LethbridgeNordion (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLidarHabitatRemote sensingBathymetryKelp forestBayEnvironmental scienceVegetation (pathology)Marine ecosystemMultispectral imageGeographyEcosystemOceanographyEcologyCartographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Marine ecosystems serve as vital indicators of biodiversity, providing habitats for diverse flora and fauna. Canada’s extensive coastal regions encompass a rich range of marine habitats, necessitating accurate mapping techniques utilizing advanced technologies, such as remote sensing (RS). This study focused on a study area in Pistolet Bay in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), Canada, with an area of approximately 170 km2 and depths varying between 0 and −28 m. Considering the relatively large coverage and shallow depths of water of the study area, it was decided to use airborne bathymetric Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data, which used green laser pulses, to map the marine habitats in this region. Along with this LiDAR data, Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) footage, high-resolution multispectral drone imagery, true color Google Earth (GE) imagery, and shoreline survey data were also collected. These datasets were preprocessed and categorized into five classes of Eelgrass, Rockweed, Kelp, Other vegetation, and Non-Vegetation. A marine habitat map of the study area was generated using the features extracted from LiDAR data, such as intensity, depth, slope, and canopy height, using an object-based Random Forest (RF) algorithm. Despite multiple challenges, the resulting habitat map exhibited a commendable classification accuracy of 89%. This underscores the efficacy of the developed Artificial Intelligence (AI) model for future marine habitat mapping endeavors across the country.

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 score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicMarine and coastal plant biologyFrench-language works237,207