Pixel- and object-based multispectral classification of forest tree species from small unmanned aerial vehicles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest inventory, monitoring, and assessment requires accurate tree species identification and mapping. Recent experiences with multispectral data from small fixed-wing and rotary blade unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) suggest a role for this technology in the emerging paradigm of enhanced forest inventory (EFI). In this paper, pixel-based and object-based image analysis (OBIA) methods were compared in UAV-based tree species classification of nine commercial tree species in mature eastern Ontario mixedwood forests. Unsupervised clustering and supervised classification of tree crown pixels yielded approximately 50%–60% classification accuracy overall; OBIA with image segmentation to delineate tree crowns and machine learning yielded up to 80% classification accuracy overall. Spectral response patterns and tree crown shape and geometric differences were interpreted in context of their ability to separate tree species of interest with these classification methods. Accuracy assessment was based on field-based forest inventory tree species identification. The paper provides a brief summary of future research issues that will influence the growth of this geomatics innovation in forest tree species classification and forest inventory.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".