INTEGRATING TERRESTRIAL LIDAR WITH POINT CLOUDS CREATED FROM UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE IMAGERY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) for the purposes of conducting high-accuracy aerial surveying has become a hot topic over the last year. One of the most promising means of conducting such a survey involves integrating a high-resolution non-metric digital camera with the UAV and using the principals of digital photogrammetry to produce high-density colorized point clouds. Through the use of stereo imagery, precise and accurate horizontal positioning information can be produced without the need for integration with any type of inertial navigation system (INS). Of course, some form of ground control is needed to achieve this result. Terrestrial LiDAR, either static or mobile, provides the solution. Points extracted from Terrestrial LiDAR can be used as control in the digital photogrammetry solution required by the UAV. In return, the UAV is an affordable solution for filling in the shadows and occlusions typically experienced by Terrestrial LiDAR. In this paper, the accuracies of points derived from a commercially available UAV solution will be examined and compared to the accuracies achievable by a commercially available LIDAR solution. It was found that the LiDAR system produced a point cloud that was twice as accurate as the point cloud produced by the UAV’s photogrammetric solution. Both solutions gave results within a few centimetres of the control field. In addition the about of planar dispersion on the vertical wall surfaces in the UAV point cloud was found to be multiple times greater than that from the horizontal ground based UAV points or the LiDAR data.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".