MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2530953581 · doi:10.1109/jstars.2019.2929546

Rapid Urban Roadside Tree Inventory Using a Mobile Laser Scanning System

2019· article· en· W2530953581 on OpenAlexaff
Yiping Chen, Shiqian Wang, Jonathan Li, Lingfei Ma, Rongren Wu, Zhipeng Luo, Cheng Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPoint cloudTree (set theory)Diameter at breast heightLaser scanningComputer scienceCrown (dentistry)LidarForest inventoryRemote sensingWorkflowArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Computer visionMathematicsLaserGeographyForestryForest management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a feasible workflow for use of three-dimensional point clouds acquired by a vehicle-borne mobile laser scanning (MLS) system for urban tree inventory. Extracting geometrical information, such as crown diameter, diameter at breast height (DBH), and tree height, from the MLS point clouds is a challenging task due to huge data volume, occlusions, mixed density, and irregular distribution of points in complex urban environments. The proposed workflow consists of three parts: individual tree cluster extraction, geometric parameter estimation, and tree species classification. The results show that over 93% of the roadside trees were correctly detected with an average error of about 5% in the DBH estimation when compared to field surveys and 78% of the overall accuracy was achieved for the classification of tree species.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.202 · 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
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

Citations52
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207