MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884996885 · doi:10.3390/rs10071134

Mapping the Individual Trees in Urban Orchards by Incorporating Volunteered Geographic Information and Very High Resolution Optical Remotely Sensed Data: A Template Matching-Based Approach

2018· article· en· W2884996885 on OpenAlexaff
Hossein Vahidi, Brian Klinkenberg, Brian Alan Johnson, L. Monika Moskal, Wanglin Yan

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolunteered geographic informationComputer scienceCrowdsourcingMean squared errorTree (set theory)Remote sensingOrchardThematic mapDecision treeData miningArtificial intelligenceCartographyGeographyMathematicsData scienceStatisticsWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a collective sensing approach that integrates imperfect Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) obtained through Citizen Science (CS) tree mapping projects with very high resolution (VHR) optical remotely sensed data for low-cost, fine-scale, and accurate mapping of trees in urban orchards. To this end, an individual tree crown (ITC) detection technique utilizing template matching (TM) was developed for extracting urban orchard trees from VHR optical imagery. To provide the training samples for the TM algorithm, remotely sensed VGI about trees including the crowdsourced data about ITC locations and their crown diameters was adopted in this study. A data quality assessment of the proposed approach in the study area demonstrated that the detected trees had a very high degree of completeness (92.7%), a high thematic accuracy (false discovery rate (FDR) = 0.090, false negative rate (FNR) = 0.073, and F1 score (F1) = 0.918), and a fair positional accuracy (root mean square error(RMSE) = 1.02 m). Overall, the proposed approach based on the crowdsourced training samples generally demonstrated a promising ITC detection performance in our pilot project.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.848

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations32
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207