Improving the Precision of Tree Counting by Combining Tree Detection with Crown Delineation and Classification on Homogeneity Guided Smoothed High Resolution (50 cm) Multispectral Airborne Digital Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A method of counting the number of coniferous trees by species within forest compartments was developed by combining an individual tree crown delineation technique with a treetop detection technique, using high spatial resolution optical sensor data. When this method was verified against field data from the Shinshu University Campus Forest composed of various cover types, the accuracy for the total number of trees per stand was higher than 84%. This shows improvements over the individual tree crown delineation technique alone which had accuracies lower than 62%, or the treetop detection technique alone which had accuracies lower than 78%. However, the accuracy of the number of trees classified by species was less than 84%. The total number of trees by species per stand was improved with exclusion of the understory species and ranged from 45.2% to 93.8% for Chamaecyparis obtusa and C. pisifera and from 37.9% to 98.1% for broad-leaved trees because many of these were understory species. The better overall results are attributable primarily to the overestimation of Pinus densiflora, Larix kaempferi and broad-leaved trees compensating for the underestimation of C. obtusa and C. pisifera. Practical forest management can be enhanced by registering the output resulting from this technology in a forest geographical information system database. This approach is mostly useful for conifer plantations containing medium to old age trees, which have a higher timber value.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Remote sensing method for counting trees by species from airborne imagery.
It develops a tree-counting method for forest management, using a method to answer a domain question.
Remote-sensing tree-counting method answers a forestry inventory question.
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".