Evaluation of Ground Surface Models Derived from Unmanned Aerial Systems with Digital Aerial Photogrammetry in a Disturbed Conifer Forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Detailed vertical forest structure information can be remotely sensed by combining technologies of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) and digital aerial photogrammetry (DAP). A key limitation in the application of DAP methods, however, is the inability to produce accurate digital elevation models (DEM) in areas of dense vegetation. This study investigates the terrain modeling potential of UAS-DAP methods within a temperate conifer forest in British Columbia, Canada. UAS-acquired images were photogrammetrically processed to produce high-resolution DAP point clouds. To evaluate the terrain modeling ability of DAP, first, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to estimate optimal parameters of three ground-point classification algorithms designed for airborne laser scanning (ALS). Algorithms tested include progressive triangulated irregular network (TIN) densification (PTD), hierarchical robust interpolation (HRI) and simple progressive morphological filtering (SMRF). Points were classified as ground from the ALS and served as ground-truth data to which UAS-DAP derived DEMs were compared. The proportion of area with root mean square error (RMSE) <1.5 m were 56.5%, 51.6% and 52.3% for the PTD, HRI and SMRF methods respectively. To assess the influence of terrain slope and canopy cover, error values of DAP-DEMs produced using optimal parameters were compared to stratified classes of canopy cover and slope generated from ALS point clouds. Results indicate that canopy cover was approximately three times more influential on RMSE than terrain slope.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".