MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967462629 · doi:10.1139/juvs-2018-0014

Accuracy assessment using different UAV image overlaps

2019· article· en· W2967462629 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Haval AbdulJabbar Sadeq

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topic3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotogrammetryOblique caseOrthophotoComputer visionArtificial intelligenceRedundancy (engineering)Computer scienceSoftwareOrientation (vector space)Remote sensingStructure from motionGeologyMathematicsMotion (physics)Geometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unmanned aerial vehicle images are considered an important tool in close-range photogrammetry for topographic map production and 3D modelling using structure-from-motion approaches. The effect of overlap percentage in vertical and integrated vertical and oblique images on accuracy is evaluated. Analysis showed that the accuracy of the photogrammetric products (e.g., digital surface model and orthoimagery) is increased with the increased overlap percentage in vertical images. The accuracy is better when oblique images are integrated into vertical images than when only vertical images are used even with the same number of images. Furthermore, the building façade is constructed, but the building suffers from noise. Increasing the number of integrated vertical and oblique images improves the accuracy of the products and provides considerable precision to 3D modelling. This study showed that the improved result is due to the increased redundancy in image matching and optimised parameters of interior orientation through self-calibration. The images are processed using Pix4D software.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations32
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Unmanned Vehicle SystemsSame topic3D Surveying and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207