How to recognize different types of trees from quite a long way away: combining UAV and spaceborne imagery for stand-level tree species identification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To understand how a forest may respond to environmental changes or develop over time, it is necessary to examine broad, landscape level factors. With the arrival of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), the combination of both spaceborne data with high resolution UAV data can provide foresters and biologists with powerful tools to classify canopies to the species level, which we illustrate here. We combine imagery from the Operational Land Imager (OLI) of the Landsat 8 satellite with aerial imagery from a Phantom 4 UAV to map canopy composition of three tree species. We manually delineated dense stands of each tree species in the UAV imagery to extract training samples from an OLI true colour composite image to perform a fuzzy membership analysis and calculate the maximum likelihood that an individual pixel represented a particular species. We verified the accuracy of our analysis finding an overall accuracy of 0.796 and a Kappa statistic of 0.728. We consider these results to be a strong demonstration of the value of using UAV and satellite imagery in tandem to investigate forest-wide effects at an individual tree level.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".