Leveraging AI to Estimate Caribou Lichen in UAV Orthomosaics from Ground Photo Datasets
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".