Geographic Disparity in Machine Intelligence Approaches for Archaeological Remote Sensing Research

被引:18
作者
Davis, Dylan S. [1 ]
机构
[1] Penn State Univ, Dept Anthropol, University Pk, PA 16802 USA
基金
美国国家航空航天局;
关键词
machine intelligence; remote sensing; archaeology; ethics; data sharing; automated analysis; FEATURE-EXTRACTION; IMAGE-ANALYSIS; OBJECT; CLASSIFICATION; LIDAR; IDENTIFICATION; PROSPECTION; LANDSCAPES; SETTLEMENT; DEPOSITS;
D O I
10.3390/rs12060921
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
A vast majority of the archaeological record, globally, is understudied and increasingly threatened by climate change, economic and political instability, and violent conflict. Archaeological data are crucial for understanding the past, and as such, documentation of this information is imperative. The development of machine intelligence approaches (including machine learning, artificial intelligence, and other automated processes) has resulted in massive gains in archaeological knowledge, as such computational methods have expedited the rate of archaeological survey and discovery via remote sensing instruments. Nevertheless, the progression of automated computational approaches is limited by distinct geographic imbalances in where these techniques are developed and applied. Here, I investigate the degree of this disparity and some potential reasons for this imbalance. Analyses from Web of Science and Microsoft Academic searches reveal that there is a substantial difference between the Global North and South in the output of machine intelligence remote sensing archaeology literature. There are also regional imbalances. I argue that one solution is to increase collaborations between research institutions in addition to data sharing efforts.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 89 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 2010, PHOTOINTERPR TATION
  • [2] Combining image analysis and modular neural networks for classification of mineral inclusions and pores in archaeological potsherds
    Aprile, Anna
    Castellano, Giovanna
    Eramo, Giacomo
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 2014, 50 : 262 - 272
  • [3] Ontologies to interpret remote sensing images: why do we need them?
    Arvor, Damien
    Belgiu, Mariana
    Falomir, Zoe
    Mougenot, Isabelle
    Durieux, Laurent
    [J]. GISCIENCE & REMOTE SENSING, 2019, 56 (06) : 911 - 939
  • [4] Beaudry C., 2018, NEXT GENERATION SCI, P45, DOI DOI 10.47622/978-1-928331-93-3
  • [5] The data explosion: tackling the taboo of automatic feature recognition in airborne survey data
    Bennett, Rebecca
    Cowley, Dave
    De Laet, Veronique
    [J]. ANTIQUITY, 2014, 88 (341) : 896 - 905
  • [6] BINFORD LR, 1966, AM ANTHROPOL, V68, P238
  • [7] Bintliff John., 1999, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, V12, P139, DOI DOI 10.1558/JMEA.V12I2.139
  • [8] Object based image analysis for remote sensing
    Blaschke, T.
    [J]. ISPRS JOURNAL OF PHOTOGRAMMETRY AND REMOTE SENSING, 2010, 65 (01) : 2 - 16
  • [9] Boellstorff Tom., 2015, DATA NOW BIGGER BETT
  • [10] Beyond Site Detection: The Role of Satellite Remote Sensing in Analysing Archaeological Problems. A Case Study in Lithic Resource Procurement in the Atacama Desert, Northern Chile
    Borie, Cesar
    Parcero-Oubina, Cesar
    Kwon, Youngsang
    Salazar, Diego
    Flores, Carola
    Olguin, Laura
    Andrade, Pedro
    [J]. REMOTE SENSING, 2019, 11 (07)