Individual tree detection in digital aerial images by combining locally adaptive binarization and local maxima methods
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Locating local maxima of grey levels in aerial images was used for individual tree detection in boreal, closed forest conditions in southern Finland. Image smoothing and binarization were used as preprocessing steps. Binarization was used to restrict the local maxima searching to the bright areas of the images, which were assumed to be tree crowns. Because brightness variations are typical of aerial images, both within and among images, locally adaptive methods were suggested for binarization. Aerial digital camera images and mapped tree data of eight stands in three field plots were used. Four adaptive binarization methods were compared. Differences in tree detection accuracy were small even though the appearance of the binarized images were different. Image smoothing improved the results of tree detection in the three stands that had the largest mean tree size. Tree detection worked fairly well in all seven stands with a density of less than 1500 trees/ha. In these stands, 7095% of the trees were detected, whereas only 54% were detected in the last stand, which had a density of approximately 1900 trees/ha.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it