Integrating Unmanned Aircraft Systems to Measure Linear and Areal Features into Undergraduate Forestry Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in undergraduate forestry education continues to expand and develop. Accuracy of data collection is an important aspect of preparation for “society-ready” foresters to meet the complex sustainable environment managing for ecological, social and economic interests. Hands-on use of a DJI Phantom 4 Pro UAS by undergraduates to measure the length and area of 30 linear features and areal features on Earth’s surface were estimated. These measurements were compared (measured within the ArcMap 10.5.2 interface) to hyperspectral Pictometry imagery measured on the web-based interface and the Google Earth Pro interface. Each remotely estimated measurement was verified with the actual ground measurements and the methods compared. An analysis of variance, conducted on the absolute length errors resulting in a p-value of 0.000057, concluded that the three length estimating techniques were statistically different at a 95% confidence interval. A Tukey pair-wise test found that the remotely sensed DJI Phantom 4 Pro data was statistically less accurate than the Pictometry and Google Earth Pro data, while both of which were found to be not different statistically in terms of accuracy. The areal feature area measurements were not normally distributed and therefore tested for equal medians using a Kruskal-Wallis test. The test found that there was no significant difference between sample medians, indicating that all three methods of estimating area are statistically equal in accuracy. The results indicate that Pictometry and Google Earth Pro could both be used to accurately estimate linear feature lengths remotely in lieu of in situ linear measurements while all three remote sensing techniques can be used to accurately estimate areal feature areas remotely in lieu of in situ areal measurements.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".