MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1570209653 · doi:10.1109/lgrs.2015.2449074

Road Boundaries Detection Based on Local Normal Saliency From Mobile Laser Scanning Data

2015· article· en· W1570209653 on OpenAlexaff
Hanyun Wang, Huan Luo, Chenglu Wen, Jun Cheng, Peng Li, Yiping Chen, Cheng Wang, Jonathan Li

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPoint cloudComputer scienceCorrectnessComputer visionSalientArtificial intelligenceVanishing pointLaser scanningPartition (number theory)Feature extractionTrajectoryImage (mathematics)LaserMathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The accurate extraction of roads is a prerequisite for the automatic extraction of other road features. This letter describes a method for detecting road boundaries from mobile laser scanning (MLS) point clouds in an urban environment. The key idea of our method is directly constructing a saliency map on 3-D unorganized point clouds to extract road boundaries. The method consists of four major steps, i.e., road partition with the assistance of the vehicle trajectory, salient map construction and salient points extraction, curb detection and curb lowest points extraction, and road boundaries fitting. The performance of the proposed method is evaluated on the point clouds of an urban scene collected by a RIEGL VMX-450 MLS system. The completeness, correctness, and quality of the extracted road boundaries are 95.41%, 99.35%, and 94.81%, respectively. Experimental results demonstrate that our method is feasible for detecting road boundaries in MLS point clouds.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations80
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing LettersSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207