MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1551700934 · doi:10.14393/rbcv56n1-43497

CO-REGISTRATION OF PHOTOGRAMMETRIC AND LIDAR DATA: METHODOLOGY AND CASE STUDY

2009· article· en· W1551700934 on OpenAlexaff
Ayman Habib, Mwafag Ghanma, Edson Aparecido Mitishita

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Brasileira de Cartografia · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversidade Federal do Paraná
KeywordsPhotogrammetryLidarComputer scienceComputer visionGeodetic datumArtificial intelligenceRemote sensingImage registrationOrientation (vector space)TriangulationObject (grammar)GeographyImage (mathematics)MathematicsCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Registration activities combine data from different sources in order to attain higher accuracy and derive more information than available from one source. The increasing availability of a wide variety of sensors capable of capturing high quality and complementary data requires parallel efforts for developing accurate and robust registration techniques. Currently, photogrammetric and LIDAR systems are being incorporated in a wide spectrum of mapping applications such as city modeling, surface reconstruction, and object recognition. Photogrammetric processing of overlapping imagery provides accurate information regarding object space break-lines in addition to an explicit semantic description of the photographed objects. On the other hand, LIDAR systems supply dense geometric surface information in the form of non-selective points. Considering the properties of photogrammetric and LIDAR data, it is clear that the two technologies provide complementary information. However, the synergic characteristics of both systems can be fully utilized only after successful registration of the photogrammetric and LIDAR data relative to a common reference frame. The registration methodology has to deal with three issues: registration primitives, transformation function, and similarity measure. This paper presents two methodologies for utilizing straight-line features derived from both datasets as the registration primitives. The first methodology directly incorporates the LIDAR lines as control information in the photogrammetric triangulation. The second methodology starts by generating a photogrammetric model relative to an arbitrary datum. Then, LIDAR features are used as control information for the absolute orientation of the photogrammetric model. In addition to the registration methodologies, the paper presents a comparative analysis between two approaches for extracting linear features from raw and processed/interpolated LIDAR data. Also, a comparative analysis between metric analog and amateur digital cameras within the registration process will be presented. The performance analysis is based on the quality of fit of the final alignment between the LIDAR and photogrammetric models.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.253
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Brasileira de CartografiaSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207