Cited by 43

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The Efficacy and Analytical Importance of Manual Feature Extraction Using Lidar Datasets

Quintus, Seth, Day, Stephanie S., Smith, Nathan J.·2017·Advances in Archaeological Practice

Abstract

The availability of lidar datasets has led to several advances in archaeology, notably in the process of site prospection. Some remote sensing practitioners have aimed to create automated feature extraction (AFE) techniques that increase the efficiency and efficacy of identification and analysis. While these advances have been successful, many archaeological professionals who might have an interest in lidar-derived products do not have the technical experience to modify or create AFE techniques for particular regions or environments. Additionally, some features are not appropriate for AFE. Instead, the most widely used technique is still likely to be visually based manual feature identification. Using authors of different experience levels, we seek to evaluate the use of manual techniques for feature identification and subsequent analysis by implementing a publicly available lidar-derived digital elevation model (DEM). We demonstrate that manual feature extraction (MFE) can be accurate when more than one researcher is involved in a sort of “checks and balances” process. We also show that the use of confidence ratings can be an important part of this process if those ratings have some systematic and clearly defined underpinning. Finally, we argue, using a case study from American Samoa, that manually identified features can be analytically important as part of larger landscape studies.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/aap.2017.13

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Previous studies of remote survey note that archaeological sites located at high elevations and consisting of large geometric shapes-such as architectural structures-are much more likely to be detected than sites which lack these characteristics.

    “Previous studies of remote survey note that archaeological sites located at high elevations and consisting of large geometric shapes—such as architectural structures—are much more likely to be detected than sites which lack these characteristics [54, 55].”
  • One of the primary issues with manual remote survey-regardless of the type of imagery used-is inter-coder reliability.

    “One of the primary issues with manual remote survey—regardless of the type of imagery used—is inter-coder reliability [55, 59].”

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. 10.1002/arp.1497 · DOI
  2. 10.1179/2042458215Y.0000000016 · DOI
  3. 10.1007/s12520-014-0178-3 · DOI
  4. 10.7183/2326-3768.4.3.339 · DOI
  5. 10.1016/S0305-4403(02)00271-6 · DOI
  6. 10.7183/0002-7316.81.2.273 · DOI
  7. 10.7183/2326-3768.4.3.314 · DOI
  8. Herdrich, 1993, The Evolution and Organisation of Prehistoric Society in Polynesia, 52
  9. 10.1016/j.jas.2013.12.004 · DOI
  10. Quintus Seth J. 2011 Land Use and the Human-Environment Interaction on Olosega Island, Manu'a, American Samoa. Master's thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, North Dakota State University, Fargo.
  11. 10.1371/journal.pone.0162062 · DOI
  12. Liu, 2011, Vegetation Mapping of American Samoa
  13. 10.1017/S0016756810000038 · DOI
  14. 10.3390/rs6098671 · DOI
  15. Addison David J. 2008 Report on Archaeological Test Excavations at the New Ta'u Dispensary Site. Samoa Environmental and Archaeological Consultants. Submitted to the Department of Public Works, American Samoa Government, Pago Pago, American Samoa.
  16. 10.1002/arp.1414 · DOI
  17. 10.7183/2326-3768.4.3.393 · DOI
  18. 10.1017/S0003598X00114577 · DOI
  19. 10.1080/00438243.2016.1195576 · DOI
  20. Cleghorn, 2000, Archaeological Data Recovery Report for the Proposed Ta'u Road Reconstruction, at Faga and Fitiuta, Ta'u Island, Manu'a, American Samoa
  21. Clark, 1990, The Ta'u Road Archaeological Project
  22. 10.1016/j.jas.2016.04.011 · DOI
  23. 10.1016/j.ancene.2016.07.001 · DOI
  24. 10.1017/S0003598X00114589 · DOI
  25. 10.1016/j.jasrep.2014.11.010 · DOI
  26. 10.1002/wat2.1171 · DOI
  27. 10.1080/15230406.2015.1059171 · DOI
  28. 10.1016/j.jas.2011.08.031 · DOI
  29. 10.1002/arp.421 · DOI
  30. 10.1002/gea.20170 · DOI
  31. Quintus Seth J. 2015 Dynamics of Agricultural Development in Prehistoric Samoa: The Case of Ofu Island. PhD thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
  32. Sand, 2012, Archaeology of Manono Island (Samoa): First Field Program Report
  33. 10.1002/j.1834-4453.2007.tb00004.x · DOI
  34. 10.15286/jps.121.3.275-302 · DOI
  35. Whistler, 1992, Botanical Inventory of the Proposed Ta'u Unit of the National Park of American Samoa
  36. Herdrich, 1996, A Cultural Resource Evaluation (Phase I and II) for a Portion of Road 1b, Phase I of the Ta'u Road Reconstruction Located on Ta'u Island, Manu'a, American Samoa
  37. Holmer, 1980, Archaeological Excavations in Western Samoa, 93
  38. Raber, 2012, Post-flight Aerial Acquisition and Calibration Report
  39. 10.1016/j.jas.2011.02.033 · DOI
  40. 10.15184/aqy.2015.157 · DOI
  41. 10.1016/j.jas.2012.05.029 · DOI
  42. 10.1073/pnas.1205198109 · DOI
  43. Hunt, 1988, An Archaeological Survey of the Manu'a Islands, American Samoa, Journal of the Polynesian Society, 97, 153
  44. 10.1002/j.1834-4453.2012.tb00125.x · DOI
  45. 10.15184/aqy.2015.159 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Quintus, S., Day, S. S., & Smith, N. J.
Venue
Advances in Archaeological Practice
Published
2017-08-23
Volume
5
Issue
4
Pages
351-364
ISSN
2326-3768
Cited by
43
References
0
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review