The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Thematic Map Comparison
Open accessAbstract
The accuracy of thematic maps derived by image classification analyses is often compared in remote sensing studies. This comparison is typically achieved by a basic subjective assessment of the observed difference in accuracy but should be undertaken in a statistically rigorous fashion. One approach for the evaluation of the statistical significance of a difference in map accuracy that has been widely used in remote sensing research is based on the comparison of the kappa coefficient of agreement derived for each map. The conventional approach to the comparison of kappa coefficients assumes that the samples used in their calculation are independent, an assumption that is commonly unsatisfied because the same sample of ground data sites is often used for each map. Alternative methods to evaluate the statistical significance of differences in accuracy are available for both related and independent samples. Approaches for map comparison based on the kappa coefficient and proportion of correctly allocated cases, the two most widely used metrics of thematic map accuracy in remote sensing, are discussed. An example illustrates how classifications based on the same sample of ground data sites may be compared rigorously and highlights the importance of distinguishing between one- and two-sided statistical tests in the comparison of classification accuracy statements.
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
Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions
Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2003) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471445428 · Cited by 18,646
Cited by
Hyperspectral remote sensing data analysis and future challenges
Bioucas-Dias, J. M., Plaza, A., Camps-Valls, G., Scheunders, P., Nasrabadi, N., & Chanussot, J. (2013) · IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine · doi:10.1109/mgrs.2013.2244672 · Cited by 2,223
Zabalza, J., Ren, J., Zheng, J., Zhao, H., Qing, C., Yang, Z., Du, P., & Marshall, S. (2016) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2015.11.044 · Cited by 389
Sample size determination for image classification accuracy assessment and comparison
Foody, G. M. (2009) · International Journal of Remote Sensing · doi:10.1080/01431160903130937 · Cited by 248
Lu, Z., Im, J., Rhee, J., & Hodgson, M. (2014) · Landscape and Urban Planning · doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.07.005 · Cited by 121
Chen, T.-H. K., Qiu, C., Schmitt, M., Zhu, X. X., Sabel, C. E., & Prishchepov, A. V. (2020) · Remote Sensing of Environment · doi:10.1016/j.rse.2020.112096 · Cited by 104
Metadata
- Authors
- Foody, G. M.
- Venue
- Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing
- Published
- 2004-05-01
- Volume
- 70
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 627-633
- ISSN
- 0099-1112 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2168481151
- Cited by
- 1,065
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 53.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Thematic Map Comparison. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.14358/pers.70.5.627
- The paper
- Foody, G. M. (2004). Thematic Map Comparison. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing. https://doi.org/10.14358/pers.70.5.627
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.