MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954778974 · doi:10.3390/rs11131556

Multi-Spectral Lidar: Radiometric Calibration, Canopy Spectral Reflectance, and Vegetation Vertical SVI Profiles

2019· article· en· W2954778974 on OpenAlexaff
Maxim Okhrimenko, Craig A. Coburn, Chris Hopkinson

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLidarRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceCalibrationReflectivityRadiometric calibrationSpectral bandsOpticsGeologyMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-spectral (ms) airborne lidar data are enriched relative to traditional lidar due to the multiple channels of intensity digital numbers (DNs), which offer the potential for active Spectral Vegetation Indices (SVIs), enhanced classification, and change monitoring. However, in case of SVIs, indices should be calculated from spectral reflectance values derived from intensity DNs after calibration. In this paper, radiometric calibration of multi-spectral airborne lidar data is presented. A novel low-cost diffuse reflectance coating was adopted for creating radiometric targets. Comparability of spectral reflectance values derived from ms lidar data for coniferous stand (2.5% for 532 nm, 17.6% for 1064 nm, and 8.4% for 1550 nm) to available spectral libraries is shown. Active vertical profiles of SVIs were constructed and compared to modeled results available in the literature. The potential for a new landscape-level active 3D SVI voxel approach is demonstrated. Results of a field experiment with complex radiometric targets for estimating losses in detected lidar signals are described. Finally, an approach for estimating spectral reflectance values from lidar split returns is analyzed and the results show similarity of estimated values of spectral reflectance derived from split returns to spectral reflectance values obtained from single returns (p > 0.05 for paired test).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.735

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.237 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations31
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207