MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005872463 · doi:10.3390/rs12030585

A New Individual Tree Crown Delineation Method for High Resolution Multispectral Imagery

2020· article· en· W3005872463 on OpenAlexaff
Lin Qiu, Linhai Jing, Baoxin Hu, Hui Li, Yunwei Tang

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrown (dentistry)Multispectral imageDeciduousRemote sensingTree (set theory)BrightnessComputer scienceGeologyMathematicsOpticsBotanyMaterials scienceBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In current individual tree crown (ITC) delineation methods for high-resolution multispectral imagery, either a spectral band or a brightness component of the multispectral image is employed in delineation with reference to edges or shapes of crowns, whereas spectra of tree crowns are seldom taken into account. Such methods normally perform well in coniferous forests with obvious between-crown shadows, but fail in dense deciduous or mixed forests, in which tree crowns are close to each other, between-crown shadows and boundaries are unobvious, whereas adjacent tree crowns may be of distinguishable spectra. In order to effectively delineate crowns in dense deciduous or mixed forests, a new ITC delineation method using both brightness and spectra of the image is proposed in this study. In this method, a morphological gradient map of the image is first generated, treetops of multi-scale crowns are extracted from the gradient map and refined regarding the spectral differences between neighboring crowns, the gradient map is segmented using a watershed approach with treetops as markers, and the resulting segmentation map is refined to yield a crown map. Evaluated on images of a rainforest and a deciduous forest, the proposed method more accurately delineated adjacent broad-leaved tree crowns with similar brightness but different spectra than the other two typical ITC delineation algorithms, achieving a delineation accuracy of up to 76% in the rainforest and 63% in the deciduous forest.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.834

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations47
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207