MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3118657580 · doi:10.5539/hes.v11n1p105

Measuring Building Height Using Point Cloud Data Derived from Unmanned Aerial System Imagery in an Undergraduate Geospatial Science Course

2021· article· en· W3118657580 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David Kulhavy, I‐Kuai Hung, Daniel Unger, Reid Viegut, Yanli Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Studies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topic3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersStephen F. Austin State University
KeywordsGeospatial analysisCurriculumCapstone courseRemote sensingPoint cloudGeomaticsComputer scienceData scienceGeographyCapstoneArtificial intelligenceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), also known as drones is increasing in geospatial science curricula within the United States. Within the Arthur Temple College of Forestry and Agriculture (ATCOFA) at Stephen F. Austin State University, Texas, seniors in the geospatial science program complete capstone projects to evaluate current geospatial technology to investigate complex ecological, social and environmental issues. Under the umbrella of a student initiated and designed senior project, students designed a study to estimate height of buildings with UAS data incorporating UAS data, LP360 and ArcScene programs, and Pictometry web-based interface. Results from a statistical analysis of the data confirm that geospatial science height estimation techniques can provide accurate estimates of height remotely. The independence of the students completing the project with UAS data for LP360 and ArcScene estimations, and utilizing Pictometry as an on-onscreen measuring tool, point to the need to integrate remote sensing, statistical analysis and synthesis of data into undergraduate geospatial science curricula. This reinforces the hands-on learning approach within ATCOFA and provides guidance to integrate the use of UAS in natural resource education.

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)0.001
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.625

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher Education StudiesSame topic3D Surveying and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207