Mapping Crop Types for Beekeepers Using Sentinel-2 Satellite Image Time Series: Five Essential Crops in the Pollination Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Driven by the widespread adoption of deep learning (DL) in crop mapping with satellite image time series (SITS), this study was motivated by the recent success of temporal attention-based approaches in crop mapping. To meet the needs of beekeepers, this study aimed to develop DL-based classification models for mapping five essential crops in pollination services in Quebec province, Canada, by using Sentinel-2 SITS. Due to the challenging task of crop mapping using SITS, this study employed three DL-based models, namely one-dimensional temporal convolutional neural networks (CNNs) (1DTempCNNs), one-dimensional spectral CNNs (1DSpecCNNs), and long short-term memory (LSTM). Accordingly, this study aimed to capture expert-free temporal and spectral features, specifically targeting temporal features using 1DTempCNN and LSTM models, and spectral features using the 1DSpecCNN model. Our findings indicated that the LSTM model (macro-averaged recall of 0.80, precision of 0.80, F1-score of 0.80, and ROC of 0.89) outperformed both 1DTempCNNs (macro-averaged recall of 0.73, precision of 0.74, F1-score of 0.73, and ROC of 0.85) and 1DSpecCNNs (macro-averaged recall of 0.78, precision of 0.77, F1-score of 0.77, and ROC of 0.88) models, underscoring its effectiveness in capturing temporal features and highlighting its suitability for crop mapping using Sentinel-2 SITS. Furthermore, applying one-dimensional convolution (Conv1D) across the spectral domain demonstrated greater potential in distinguishing land covers and crop types than applying it across the temporal domain. This study contributes to providing insights into the capabilities and limitations of various DL-based classification models for crop mapping using Sentinel-2 SITS.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".