The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparing fully convolutional networks, random forest, support vector machine, and patch-based deep convolutional neural networks for object-based wetland mapping using images from small unmanned aircraft system
Open accessAbstract
Deep learning networks have shown great success in several computer vision applications, but its implementation in natural land cover mapping in the context of object-based image analysis (OBIA) is rarely explored area especially in terms of the impact of training sample size on the performance comparison. In this study, two representatives of deep learning networks including fully convolutional networks (FCN) and patch-based deep convolutional neural networks (DCNN), and two conventional classifiers including random forest and support vector machine were implemented within the framework of OBIA to classify seven natural land cover types. We assessed the deep learning classifiers using different training sample sizes and compared their performance with traditional classifiers. FCN was implemented using two types of training samples to investigate its ability to utilize object surrounding information.Our results indicate that DCNN may produce inferior performance compared to conventional classifiers when the training sample size is small, but it tends to show substantially higher accuracy than the conventional classifiers when the training sample size becomes large. The results also imply that FCN is more efficient in utilizing the information in the training sample than DCNN and conventional classifiers, with higher if not similar achieved accuracy regardless of sample size. DCNN and FCN tend to show similar performance for the large sample size when the training samples used for training the FCN do not contain object surrounding label information. However, with the ability of utilizing surrounding label information, FCN always achieved much higher accuracy than all the other classification methods regardless of the number of training samples.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition
He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., & Sun, J. (2016) · 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2016.90 · Cited by 235,474
ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks
Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., & Hinton, G. E. (2017) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3065386 · Cited by 112,155
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature14539 · Cited by 84,126
Cortes, C., & Vapnik, V. (1995) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/bf00994018 · Cited by 59,421
A fast learning algorithm for deep belief nets
Hinton, G. E., Osindero, S., & Teh, Y.-W. (2006) · Neural Computation · doi:10.1162/neco.2006.18.7.1527 · Cited by 16,336
Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search
Silver, D., Huang, A., Maddison, C. J., Guez, A., Sifre, L., van den Driessche, G., Schrittwieser, J., Antonoglou, I., Panneershelvam, V., Lanctot, M., et al. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature16961 · Cited by 15,612
Hinton, G., Deng, L., Yu, D., Dahl, G., Mohamed, A.-R., Jaitly, N., Senior, A., Vanhoucke, V., Nguyen, P., Sainath, T., et al. (2012) · IEEE Signal Processing Magazine · doi:10.1109/msp.2012.2205597 · Cited by 10,260
Hierarchical Feature Representation and Multimodal Fusion with Deep Learning for AD/MCI Diagnosis
Suk, H.-I., Lee, S.-W., & Shen, D. (2014) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.06.077 · Cited by 968 · cited 1×
“…out to many industrial applications and other academic areas in recent years as it continues to advance technologies in areas like speech recognition (Hinton et al. 2012), medical diagnosis (Suk et al. 2014), autonomous driving (Huval et al. 2015), or even the gaming world (Silver et al. 2016).”
BackgroundLearning multiscale and deep representations for classifying remotely sensed imagery
Zhao, W., & Du, S. (2016) · ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2016.01.004 · Cited by 398
Rhee, J., & Im, J. (2017) · Agricultural and Forest Meteorology · doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2017.02.011 · Cited by 245
Cited by
Liu, T., & Abd-Elrahman, A. (2018) · ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2018.03.006 · Cited by 103
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Liu, T., Abd-Elrahman, A., Morton, J., & Wilhelm, V. L.
- Venue
- GIScience & Remote Sensing
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2018-01-19
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 243-264
- ISSN
- 1548-1603 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-7226
- OpenAlex
- W2793091350
- Cited by
- 266
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 25.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparing fully convolutional networks, random forest, support vector machine, and patch-based deep convolutional neural networks for object-based wetland mapping using images from small unmanned aircraft system. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/15481603.2018.1426091
- The paper
- Liu, T., Abd-Elrahman, A., Morton, J., & Wilhelm, V. L. (2018). Comparing fully convolutional networks, random forest, support vector machine, and patch-based deep convolutional neural networks for object-based wetland mapping using images from small unmanned aircraft system. GIScience & Remote Sensing. https://doi.org/10.1080/15481603.2018.1426091
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.