Photogrammetric surveying forests and woodlands with UAVs: techniques for automatic removal of vegetation and digital terrain model production for hydrological applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is the photogrammetric survey of a forested area using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), and the estimation of the digital terrain model (DTM) of the area, based on the photogrammetrically produced digital surface model (DSM). Furthermore, through the classification of the height difference between a DSM and a DTM, a vegetation height model is estimated, and a vegetation type map is produced. Finally, the generated DTM was used in a hydrological analysis study to determine its suitability compared to the usage of the DSM. The selected study area was the forest of Seih-Sou (Thessaloniki). The DTM extraction methodology applies classification and filtering of point clouds, and aims to produce a surface model including only terrain points (DTM). The method yielded a DTM that functioned satisfactorily as a basis for the hydrological analysis. Also, by classifying the DSM–DTM difference, a vegetation height model was generated. For the photogrammetric survey, 495 aerial images were used, taken by a UAV from a height of ∼200 m. A total of 44 ground control points were measured with an accuracy of 5 cm. The accuracy of the aerial triangulation was approximately 13 cm. The produced dense point cloud, counted 146 593 725 points.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".