MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408281044 · doi:10.1109/jstars.2025.3549759

Classification of Seabed Sediment by Combining Airborne LiDAR Bathymetry and Multispectral Remote Sensing Images

2025· article· en· W4408281044 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Han Gao, Anxiu Yang, Juan Wang, Xiaozheng Mai, Xudong Liu, Ziyin Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of QingdaoNatural Science Foundation of Shandong ProvinceChina Postdoctoral Science FoundationNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsBathymetryMultispectral imageRemote sensingLidarSeabedGeologySedimentEnvironmental scienceOceanographyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The classification of seabed sediment plays an important role in marine ecological environment protection and other related fields. To fully explore the application ability of marine geographic information in seabed sediment classification, this article makes a contribution to overcome the low accuracy and reliability shortcomings of using single data source and traditional classifiers. Based on extracted multisource features, the scale-invariant feature transform - random sample consensus model is applied to realize feature-level fusion between airborne LiDAR bathymetry (ALB) data and multispectral remote sensing images. Furthermore, a dual-branch convolutional neural network (CNN) classifier is constructed to classify the seabed sediment into five categories (coral reef, sand, gravel, coastal zone, and vegetation). To verify the effectiveness of fused data in seabed sediment classification, experiments were conducted using multispectral remote sensing images and ALB data. Experimental results show that the overall classification accuracy and the Kappa coefficient of the dual CNN classifier constructed in this article are 98.2% and 0.977, respectively. In addition, the classification results using multisource fusion data are higher than those using single-source data, indicating the accuracy and effectiveness of multisource fusion features for classification. The research results can provide effective technical support for seabed sediment classification.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207