MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Urban Feature Extraction from Merged Airborne LiDAR Data and Digital Camera Data

2021· article· en· W3128041818 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lamyaa Gamal El-deen Taha, Ahmed Ibrahim Ramzi, A. Syarawi, Ahmed Ashraf Bekheet

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoplanning Journal of Geomatics and Planning · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYork University
KeywordsOrthophotoPhotogrammetryDigital elevation modelDigital cameraRemote sensingLidarArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceComputer visionPoint cloudDigital surfaceDigital imageSubpixel renderingOrientation (vector space)Digital imagingAerial imagePixelImage processingGeographyMathematicsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Until recently, the most highly accurate digital surface models were obtained from airborne lidar. With the development of a new generation of large format digital photogrammetric aerial camera, a fully digital photogrammetric workflow became possible. Digital airborne images are sources for elevation extraction and orthophoto generation. This research concerned with the generation of digital surface models and orthophotos as applications from high-resolution images. In this research, the following steps were performed. A Benchmark data of LIDAR and digital aerial camera have been used. Firstly, image orientation, AT have been performed. Then the automatic digital surface model DSM generation has been produced from the digital aerial camera. Thirdly true digital ortho has been generated from the digital aerial camera also orthoimage will be generated using LIDAR digital elevation model (DSM). Leica Photogrammetric Suite (LPS) module of Erdsa Imagine 2014 software was utilized for processing. Then the resulted orthoimages from both techniques were mosaicked. The results show that automatic digital surface model DSM that been produced from digital aerial camera method has very high dense photogrammetric 3D point clouds compared to the LIDAR 3D point clouds. It was found that the true orthoimage produced from the second approach is better than the true orthoimage produced from the first approach. The five approaches were tested for classification of the best-orthorectified image mosaic using subpixel based (neural network) and pixel-based ( minimum distance and maximum likelihood).Multicues were extracted such as texture(entropy-mean),Digital elevation model, Digital surface model ,normalized digital surface model (nDSM) and intensity image. The contributions of the individual cues used in the classification have been evaluated. It was found that the best cue integration is intensity (pan) +nDSM+ entropy followed by intensity (pan) +nDSM+mean then intensity image +mean+ entropy after that DSM )image and two texture measures (mean and entropy) followed by the colour image. The integration with height data increases the accuracy. Also, it was found that the integration with entropy texture increases the accuracy. Resulted in fifteen cases of classification it was found that maximum likelihood classifier is the best followed by minimum distance then neural network classifier. We attribute this to the fine resolution of the digital camera image. Subpixel classifier (neural network) is not suitable for classifying aerial digital camera images.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeoplanning Journal of Geomatics and Planning→Same topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications→French-language works237,207→