MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1662554138 · doi:10.5380/bcg.v9i1.1424

Linear Features in Photogrammetry

2003· article· pt· W1662554138 on OpenAlexaff
Ayman Habib, Michel Morgan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Knowledge Bank (The Ohio State University) · 2003
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topic3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotogrammetryTriangulationComputer visionComputer scienceOrientation (vector space)Artificial intelligenceObject (grammar)Matching (statistics)GeographyMathematicsGeometryCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research addresses the task of including points as well as linear features in photogrammetric applications. Straight lines in object space can be utilized to perform aerial triangulation. Irregular linear features (natural lines) in object space can be utilized to perform single photo resection and automatic relative orientation. When working with primitives, it is important to develop appropriate representations in image and object space. These representations must accommodate for the perspective projection relating the two spaces. There are various options for representing linear features in the above applications. These options have been explored, and an optimal representation has been chosen. An aerial triangulation technique that utilizes points and straight lines for frame and linear array scanners has been implemented. For this task, the MSAT (Multi Sensor Aerial Triangulation) software, developed at the Ohio State University, has been extended to handle straight lines. The MSAT software accommodates for frame and linear array scanners. In this research, natural lines were utilized to perform single photo resection and automatic relative orientation. In single photo resection, the problem is approached with no knowledge of the correspondence of natural lines between image space and object space. In automatic relative orientation, the problem is approached without knowledge of conjugate linear features in the overlap of the stereopair. The matching problem and the appropriate parameters are determined by use of the modified generalized Hough transform. These techniques were tested using simulated and real data sets for frame imagery.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations26
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Knowledge Bank (The Ohio State University)Same topic3D Surveying and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207