MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981814573 · doi:10.4095/219815

Geometric Processing of IKONOS Geo Images with DEM

2001· report· en· W2981814573 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Th Toutin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer visionComputer graphics (images)Artificial intelligenceComputer scienceRemote sensingGeographyGeologyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thirteen Pan or XS IKONOS Geo-product images over seven study sites with various environments and terrain were tested using different cartographic data and accuracies using a parametric modelling developed at the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing. The objectives were to track the error propagation during the full geometric correction process (bundle adjustment and ortho-rectification). When ground control points (GCPs) are less than 3-m accurate, 20 GCPs over the full image is a good compromise to obtain 3-4 m accuracy in the bundle adjustment. When cartographic co-ordinates are better than 1-m, 10 GCPs are then enough to increase to 2-3 m accuracy with either panchromatic or multiband images. The remaining error is due to GCP definition and plotting. Quantitative and qualitative evaluations of ortho-images were performed with independent check points or digital vector files. Positioning accuracy of 2-4 m is achieved for the ortho-images depending of the elevation accuracy (DEM and grid spacing). To achieve a better final positioning accuracy, such as 1 m, 1-2 m accurate DEM with fine grid spacing is required in addition to well-defined GCPs benchmarked on the ground.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations30
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207