MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162250508 · doi:10.1109/crv.2008.36

Deforestation: Extracting 3D Bare-Earth Surface from Airborne LiDAR Data

2008· article· en· W2162250508 on OpenAlexaff
Wei-Lwun Lu, James J. Little, Alla Sheffer, Hongbo Fu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoint cloudRemote sensingLidarInterpolation (computer graphics)Surface (topology)Vegetation (pathology)SmoothnessLand coverPoint (geometry)Computer scienceGeologyAlgorithmGeometryArtificial intelligenceMathematicsLand useImage (mathematics)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bare-earth identification selects points from a LiDAR point cloud so that they can be interpolated to form a representation of the ground surface from which structures, vegetation, and other cover have been removed. We triangulate the point cloud and segment the triangles into flat and steep triangles using a Discriminative Random Field (DRF) that uses a data-dependent label smoothness term.Regions are classified into ground and non-ground based on steepness in the regions and ground points are selected as points on ground triangles. Various post-processing steps are used to further identify flat regions as rooftops and treetops, and eliminate isolated features that affect the surface interpolation.The performance of our algorithm is evaluated in its effectiveness at labeling ground points and, more importantly, at determining the extracted bare-earth surface. Extensive comparison shows the effectiveness of the strategy at selecting ground points leading to good fit in the triangulated mesh derived from the ground points.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.328
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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)0.0030.003

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.218 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207