MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2746940507 · doi:10.1109/lgrs.2017.2734920

DEM Retrieval From Airborne LiDAR Point Clouds in Mountain Areas via Deep Neural Networks

2017· article· en· W2746940507 on OpenAlexaff
Yimin Luo, Hongchao Ma, Liguo Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsLidarRemote sensingPoint cloudDigital elevation modelTerrainRangingComputer scienceDigital surfacePhotogrammetryEnvironmental scienceArtificial intelligenceGeologyGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Airborne light detection and ranging (LiDAR) remote sensing enables accurate estimation and monitoring of terrain and vegetation, and digital surface model (DSM) and digital elevation model (DEM) are vital analytical tools to achieve this estimation and monitoring. Among them, DSM can be directly acquired from airborne LiDAR point clouds; nevertheless, for the production of DEM, point clouds representing a surface of ground objects should be accurately filtered out at first. In some mountain forest areas, due to the limited penetration of airborne LiDAR, ground points sustain a serious lack, which results in the difficulty in producing accurate DEMs. To reduce the intricacy and subjectivity caused by the manual supplement to ground points, this letter proposes a new DEM retrieval method from airborne LiDAR point clouds in mountain areas based on deep neural networks (DNNs). With a DNN model trained by accurate DEMs and DSMs, DEM retrieval becomes much easier by inputting their DSM into this model for prediction. Experiments on Fujian and Hainan mountain data sets demonstrate the effectiveness of this supervised method.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing LettersSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207