MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2894858740 · doi:10.5380/biofix.v3i2.59563

CLASSIFICAÇÃO SUPERVISIONADA DE COPAS DE ÁRVORES EM IMAGEM DE ALTA RESOLUÇÃO ESPACIAL

2018· article· pt· W2894858740 on OpenAlexaff
Franciel Eduardo Rex, Pâmela Suélen Käfer, Fábio Marcelo Breunig, Renato Beppler Spohr, Renato Santos de Souza

Bibliographic record

VenueBIOFIX Scientific Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

O presente estudo teve como objetivo avaliar o potencial de uso de imagens de alta resolução espacial para a extração da área de copa de árvores em floresta nativa utilizando classificação supervisionada. Uma imagem do sensor multiespectral a bordo do satélite Worldview-2 foi adquirida, na qual foram testados três algoritmos de classificação digital de imagens. Com os resultados das classificações, foram delimitadas 51 copas de árvores, que foram localizadas em campo para a coleta de informações como diâmetro na altura do peito (DAP), altura estimada, diâmetro de base, identificação, e medição de 8 raios de copa para formar a área de copa (AC). O algoritmo SVM apresentou o melhor resultado dentre os métodos de classificação testados. Foi encontrado um R² de 0,57 entre AC em campo e o DAP. A relação AC/DAP indica que houve um aumento da área de copa à medida que aumentou o DAP. O R² entre a AC obtida por satélite e o DAP foi de 0,55. A obtenção do parâmetro AC via classificação supervisionada pode servir de base para delimitação de copas, porém, deve-se ter cuidado com este processo para não superestimar as áreas, devido à complexidade do dossel de uma floresta nativa.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.403
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.005

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.244 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBIOFIX Scientific JournalSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207