MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133888499 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2007.908875

Multiscale Isotropic Matched Filtering for Individual Tree Detection in LiDAR Images

2007· article· en· W2133888499 on OpenAlexaff
Roman M. Palenichka, Marek B. Zaremba

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLidarComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer visionTree (set theory)Object detectionOrientation (vector space)Invariant (physics)RangingRemote sensingPattern recognition (psychology)Feature extractionFeature (linguistics)Matched filterMathematicsGeologyFilter (signal processing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses the issue of automated tree detection in remote-sensing imagery, particularly in the case of light detection and ranging (LiDAR) height data. The proposed method consists of multiscale isotropic matched filtering using a nonlinear image operator optimized for object detection and recognition. The method provides a robust scale- and orientation-invariant localization of the objects of interest. The local maxima of the matched-filtering operator are located at the potential centers of the objects of interest such as the trees. The tree verification stage consists of feature extraction at the candidate tree locations and comparison with the feature reference values. Experimental examples of the application of this matched-filtering method to LiDAR images of dense forest stands and sparsely distributed trees in residential areas are provided.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.846
Threshold uncertainty score0.562

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 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

Citations34
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207