Secondary error analysis: The evaluation of analyst dot labeling

Abstract

The author has identified the following significant results. From this examination of 25 test segments using Al labeling and ground truth labeling, the PCC on type 1 dots was found to be signficantly better for both types of ground truth labeled procedures than the PCC obtained using Al labeling. No significant difference in the PCC was found for type 2 dots. However, in all three treatments, the type 2 dots included pixels which fell on boundaries or were mixed pixels. This accounted for all PCC2 values being equally low. The proportion estimates achieved in these classifications showed no significant differences between procedures.