Leveraging AI to Estimate Caribou Lichen in UAV Orthomosaics from Ground Photo Datasets
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relating ground photographs to UAV orthomosaics is a key linkage required for accurate multi-scaled lichen mapping. Conventional methods of multi-scaled lichen mapping, such as random forest models and convolutional neural networks, heavily rely on pixel DN values for classification. However, the limited spectral range of ground photos requires additional characteristics to differentiate lichen from spectrally similar objects, such as bright logs. By applying a neural network to tiles of a UAV orthomosaics, additional characteristics, such as surface texture and spatial patterns, can be used for inferences. Our methodology used a neural network (UAV LiCNN) trained on ground photo mosaics to predict lichen in UAV orthomosaic tiles. The UAV LiCNN achieved mean user and producer accuracies of 85.84% and 92.93%, respectively, in the high lichen class across eight different orthomosaics. We compared the known lichen percentages found in 77 vegetation microplots with the predicted lichen percentage calculated from the UAV LiCNN, resulting in a R2 relationship of 0.6910. This research shows that AI models trained on ground photographs effectively classify lichen in UAV orthomosaics. Limiting factors include the misclassification of spectrally similar objects to lichen in the RGB bands and dark shadows cast by vegetation.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it