2015
DOI: 10.1080/01431161.2015.1035410
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparison of classification algorithms using Landsat-7 and Landsat-8 data for mapping lithology in Canada’s Arctic

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
33
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 67 publications
(36 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
3
33
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Sluiter and Pebesma [11] compared seven classification techniques in Mediterranean heterogeneous landscapes, concluding that the more accurate results were obtained both with RF and SVM. Similar results were reported by He et al [12] when mapping Arctic lithology in Canada. Rodríguez-Galiano [13] and Rodriguez-Galiano et al [14] used several different methods to classify land use in a semiarid environment in southern Spain.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 80%
“…Sluiter and Pebesma [11] compared seven classification techniques in Mediterranean heterogeneous landscapes, concluding that the more accurate results were obtained both with RF and SVM. Similar results were reported by He et al [12] when mapping Arctic lithology in Canada. Rodríguez-Galiano [13] and Rodriguez-Galiano et al [14] used several different methods to classify land use in a semiarid environment in southern Spain.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 80%
“…Multiple CART-like trees are created by Random Forest in training step (Breiman et al, 1994). To determine a split for each node, bootstrapped technique is used and randomly selected subsets from input variables are searched (He et al, 2015;Gislason et al, 2006). CART algorithm uses GINI index to determine the best split (Gislason et al, 2006).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recent literature, however, tend to focus on the latter, especially SVM and RF [Chabrier et al, 2012;Naidoo et al 2014;Sonobe et al, 2014;Clewley et al 2015]. Both approaches have known being consistently superior than conventional methods such as maximum likelihood classification or decision trees [Rodriguez-Galiano and Chica-Rivas, 2014;He et al, 2015;Low et al 2015].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%