MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

WORKFLOW FOR BUILDING A HYPERSPECTRAL UAV: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

2015· article· en· W2285984635 on OpenAlexafffund
Cameron Proctor, You He

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œinternational archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences/International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRemote-Sensing Image Classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHyperspectral imagingPhotochemical Reflectance IndexPayload (computing)WorkflowRemote sensingComputer scienceProcess (computing)FidelityEnvironmental scienceSystems engineeringArtificial intelligenceLeaf area indexEngineeringEcologyTelecommunicationsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Owing to the limited payload capacities of most UAV platforms within an academic research budget, many UAV systems utilize commercial RGB cameras or modified sensors with some capacity for sensing in the NIR. However, many applications require higher spectral fidelity that only hyperspectral sensors can offer. For instance, the Photochemical Reflectance Index relies upon the narrow band absorbance of xanthophyll pigments at 531 and 570nm to quantify photosynthetic light use efficiency which are important indicators of productivity and stress in agricultural and forest ecosystems. Thus, our research group has been working on building a research paradigm around a commercial off-the-shelf hyperspectral sensor and UAV. This paper discusses some of the key decisions made regarding selection of equipment and navigating the regulatory and logistical landmines. The imagery collected to date and the options available to process and utilize hyperspectral data are discussed at the end.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.012

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations13
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œinternational archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences/International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciencesSame topicRemote-Sensing Image ClassificationFrench-language works237,207