MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2771992254 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2017.8127202

Study of the heterogeneous matching potential between 3D lidar point clouds and 2D SAL images

2017· article· en· W2771992254 on OpenAlexaff
P. Kalantari, Sylvie Daniel, Simon Turbide, Linda Marchese, Alain Bergeron

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLidarSynthetic aperture radarPoint cloudRangingRemote sensingComputer scienceMatching (statistics)Context (archaeology)Radar imagingComputer visionArtificial intelligenceObject detectionRadarGeographyPattern recognition (psychology)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research aims to design a new matching approach between terrestrial LiDAR (Light detection and Ranging) data and Synthetic Aperture Ladar (SAL) images. SAL is the extension of SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) to much shorter wavelengths, thus providing higher resolution. SAL acquires 2D images that are continuous representations of an environment during day and night times. LiDAR is commonly used to produce 3D maps with a high level of detail. This technology acquires scattered point clouds that result in object boundary indeterminations. In this context, using 2D SAL images could help better distinguish objects. Thus, SAL and LiDAR provide complementary data sets to have better detection capacity towards applications of cartography and urban monitoring.

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)0.009
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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