RESNET-BASED TREE SPECIES CLASSIFICATION USING UAV IMAGES
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Tree species classification at individual tree level is a challenging problem in forest management. Deep learning, a cutting-edge technology evolved from Artificial Intelligence, was seen to outperform other techniques when it comes to complex problems such as image classification. In this work, we present a novel method to classify forest tree species through high resolution RGB images acquired with a simple consumer grade camera mounted on a UAV platform using Residual Neural Networks. We used UAV RGB images acquired over three years that varied in numerous acquisition parameters such as season, time, illumination and angle to train the neural network. To begin with, we have experimented with limited data towards the identification of two pine species namely red pine and white pine from the rest of the species. We performed two experiments, first with the images from all three acquisition years and the second with images from only one acquisition year. In the first experiment, we obtained 80% classification accuracy when the trained network was tested on a distinct set of images and in the second experiment, we obtained 51% classification accuracy. As a part of this work, a novel dataset of high-resolution labelled tree species is generated that can be used to conduct further studies involving deep neural networks in forestry.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 it