The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
On the Importance of Training Data Sample Selection in Random Forest Image Classification: A Case Study in Peatland Ecosystem Mapping
Open accessAbstract
Random Forest (RF) is a widely used algorithm for classification of remotely sensed data. Through a case study in peatland classification using LiDAR derivatives, we present an analysis of the effects of input data characteristics on RF classifications (including RF out-of-bag error, independent classification accuracy and class proportion error). Training data selection and specific input variables (i.e., image channels) have a large impact on the overall accuracy of the image classification. High-dimension datasets should be reduced so that only uncorrelated important variables are used in classifications. Despite the fact that RF is an ensemble approach, independent error assessments should be used to evaluate RF results, and iterative classifications are recommended to assess the stability of predicted classes. Results are also shown to be highly sensitive to the size of the training data set. In addition to being as large as possible, the training data sets used in RF classification should also be (a) randomly distributed or created in a manner that allows for the class proportions of the training data to be representative of actual class proportions in the landscape; and (b) should have minimal spatial autocorrelation to improve classification results and to mitigate inflated estimates of RF out-of-bag classification accuracy.
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
Breiman, L. (2001) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324 · Cited by 133,538
Random forests for classification in ecology
Cutler, D. R., Edwards, T. C., Beard, K. H., Cutler, A., Hess, K. T., Gibson, J., & Lawler, J. J. (2007) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/07-0539.1 · Cited by 4,950
Strobl, C., Malley, J., & Tutz, G. (2009) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0016973 · Cited by 2,583
Cited by
Phan, T. N., Kuch, V., & Lehnert, L. W. (2020) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs12152411 · Cited by 616
Overall Methodology Design for the United States National Land Cover Database 2016 Products
Jin, S., Homer, C., Yang, L., Danielson, P., Dewitz, J., Li, C., Zhu, Z., Xian, G., & Howard, D. (2019) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs11242971 · Cited by 322
The Challenges of Remote Monitoring of Wetlands
Gallant, A. (2015) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs70810938 · Cited by 297
Metadata
- Authors
- Millard, K., & Richardson, M.
- Venue
- Remote Sensing
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2015-07-06
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 8489-8515
- ISSN
- 2072-4292 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1565635109
- Cited by
- 606
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 44.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: On the Importance of Training Data Sample Selection in Random Forest Image Classification: A Case Study in Peatland Ecosystem Mapping. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/rs70708489
- The paper
- Millard, K., & Richardson, M. (2015). On the Importance of Training Data Sample Selection in Random Forest Image Classification: A Case Study in Peatland Ecosystem Mapping. Remote Sensing. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs70708489
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.