MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3144363032 · doi:10.3390/f12040391

Annual Shoot Segmentation and Physiological Age Classification from TLS Data in Trees with Acrotonic Growth

2021· article· en· W3144363032 on OpenAlexaff
Bastien Lecigne, Sylvain Delagrange, Olivier Taugourdeau

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisHydro-QuébecUniversité du Québec à MontréalNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTree (set theory)Context (archaeology)SegmentationScale (ratio)Computer scienceShootCellular automatonSet (abstract data type)Data setStatisticsMathematicsAlgorithmBiologyArtificial intelligenceCombinatoricsBotanyGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) has opened new avenues in the study of trees. Although TLS provides valuable information on structural elements, fine-scale analysis, e.g., at the annual shoots (AS) scale, is currently not possible. We present a new model to segment and classify AS from tree skeletons into a finite set of “physiological ages” (i.e., state of specialization and physiological age (PA)). When testing the model against perfect data, 90% of AS year and 99% of AS physiological ages were correctly extracted. AS length-estimated errors varied between 0.39 cm and 2.57 cm depending on the PA. When applying the model to tree reconstructions using real-life simulated TLS data, 50% of the AS and 77% of the total tree length are reconstructed. Using an architectural automaton to deal with non-reconstructed short axes, errors associated with AS number and length were reduced to 5% and 12%, respectively. Finally, the model was applied to real trees and was consistent with previous findings obtained from manual measurements in a similar context. This new method could be used for determining tree phenotype or for analyzing tree architecture.

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 score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.882

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207