MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2563742413

LIDAR SYSTEM CALIBRATION: IMPACT ON PLANE SEGMENTATION AND PHOTOGRAMMETRIC DATA REGISTRATION

2010· article· en· W2563742413 on OpenAlexaff
Ayman Habib, Ki‐In Bang, Ana Paula Kersting

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLidarPoint cloudPhotogrammetryCalibrationRemote sensingRangingLaser scanningComputer scienceSegmentationComputer visionArtificial intelligenceLaserGeologyGeodesyOpticsMathematicsStatistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The availability of 3D surface data is crucial for several industrial, public, and military applications. Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) is an active sensor system capable of collecting 3D information from an object surface using laser pulses. Accurate and dense LiDAR data can be utilized for georeferencing of photogrammetric data and segmentation of 3D buildings. LiDAR data contaminated by systematic errors cannot guarantee the achievement of the expected accuracy and discrepancies might occur between overlapping strips. This paper presents an alternative method for LiDAR system calibration. In the proposed method, biases in LiDAR system parameters are estimated using time-tagged point cloud and trajectory data (position only). Unlike conventional calibration methods, the proposed method does not require raw measurements like GPS/INS observations, scan-mirror angles, and laser ranges for the laser footprints. The influence of LiDAR system calibration is analyzed through the evaluation of the relative and absolute accuracy before/after the calibration. Before calibration, segmentation procedure may produce unexpected planes because of positional errors of laser footprints and discrepancies between overlapping strips. For relative accuracy analysis, the plane segmentation result before the calibration will be compared to the planes segmented from re-constructed point cloud using the estimated biases in the system parameters. In addition, the impact of the LiDAR system calibration on the absolute accuracy of the point cloud is evaluated by using the LiDAR data for photogrammetric georeferencing before and after performing the proposed calibration procedure. Alternative primitives, such as straight lines extracted from the LiDAR point cloud are used as the control information. The absolute accuracy is evaluated through check point analysis when the photogrammetric reconstruction is done using the original/calibrated LiDAR features.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications→French-language works237,207→