MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404484255 · doi:10.1080/07038992.2024.2418091

FMCNet: A Fuzzy Multiscale Convolution Network for Remote Sensing Image Segmentation

2024· article· en· W4404484255 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ziyi Li, Tingting Qu, Qianpeng Chong, Jindong Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Remote Sensing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRemote-Sensing Image Classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSegmentationFuzzy logicConvolution (computer science)GeographyArtificial intelligenceRemote sensingImage (mathematics)Computer scienceImage segmentationComputer visionCartographyPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to being affected by factors such as imaging distance, lighting, ground features, and environment, objects in the same class may have certain differences, and different classes of objects often produce similar visual features in remote sensing images. This phenomenon leads to an uncertainty problem in segmentation of remote sensing images, i.e., intra-class heterogeneity and inter-class blurring. To alleviate this problem, a fuzzy multiscale convolution neural network (FMCNet) is proposed in this paper. By extracting receptive fields of different scales, sizes and aspect ratios, the detailed information in remote sensing objects is fully represented. The relationship between their adjacent pixels is effectively expressed by fuzzy logic learning to alleviate the uncertain segmentation. The proposed method achieves overall accuracies of 85.33%, 86.31%, and 85.39% on the Vaihingen, Potsdam, and Gaofen Image datasets respectively. It demonstrates superior performance compared to existing popular methods.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Remote SensingSame topicRemote-Sensing Image ClassificationFrench-language works237,207