MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3027584190 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2019-0375

Remotely piloted aircraft systems and forests: a global state of the art and future challenges

2020· article· en· W3027584190 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fernando Coelho Eugênio, Cristine Tagliapietra Schons, Caroline Lorenci Mallmann, Mateus Sabadi Schuh, Pablo Fernandes, Tiago Luís Badin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemote sensingMultirotorBiodiversityProcess (computing)Environmental resource managementComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceGeographyEngineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Remotely piloted aircraft system (RPAS) platforms are able to optimize the process of acquiring aerial images and improve the quality of the products generated in terms of spatial and temporal resolution. The exponential advance of the use of RPAS platforms in forestry, especially from the year 2010, is noteworthy. In this review, we present the global state of the art of the development and applications of RPAS technology in forestry, structured from a systematic review. Our results reveal a trend towards the use of multirotor RPAS platforms compared with fixed-wing platforms and that sensors that register in the visible spectral range are still the most widely used. More recent research has shown applications geared especially for areas such as forest inventory, with many innovations based on the detection of individual trees. Special focus has also been given to new alternatives for pest and disease mapping and phenological phenomena that occur at short intervals, as well as the monitoring of fires and postharvest areas. Therefore, there is a great potential for the use of RPAS platforms in a wide range of forest applications, whether linked to the productive sector or to the conservation of biodiversity, with great advances for spatiotemporal forest monitoring and expectations of further progress for the coming years.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 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

Citations29
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207