MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206720244 · doi:10.3390/rs14030490

Direct Georeferencing UAV-SfM in High-Relief Topography: Accuracy Assessment and Alternative Ground Control Strategies along Steep Inaccessible Rock Slopes

2022· article· en· W4206720244 on OpenAlexafffund
Paul R. Nesbit, Stephen M. Hubbard, Chris H. Hugenholtz

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topic3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGeoreferenceRemote sensingPhotogrammetryTerrainGNSS applicationsGeologyDeformation monitoringComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceGeodesyGlobal Positioning SystemCartographyGeographyDeformation (meteorology)Physical geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Steep rock slopes present key opportunities and challenges within Earth science applications. Due to partial or complete inaccessibility, high-precision surveys of these high-relief landscapes remain a challenge. Direct georeferencing (DG) of unoccupied aerial vehicles (UAVs) with advanced onboard GNSS receivers presents opportunities to generate high-resolution 3D datasets without ground-based access to the study area. However, recent research has revealed large vertical errors using DG that may prove problematic in near-vertical terrain. To address these concerns, we examined more than 75 photogrammetric UAV-datasets with various imaging angles (nadir, oblique, and combinations) and ground control scenarios, including DG, along a steep slope exposure. Results demonstrate that mean errors in DG scenarios are up to 0.12 m higher than datasets using integrated georeferencing with well-distributed GCPs. Inclusion of GCPs greatly reduced mean error values but had limited influence on precision (<0.01 m) for any given imaging strategy. Use of multiple image angles resulted in the highest precisions, regardless of georeferencing strategy. These findings have implications for applications requiring the highest precision and accuracy (e.g., geotechnical engineering, hazard mitigation and mapping, and geomorphic change detection), which should consider using ground control whenever possible. However, for applications less concerned with absolute accuracy, our results show that DG datasets provide strong internal consistency and relative accuracy that may be suitable for high precision measurements within a model, without use of ground control.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.665
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations46
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topic3D Surveying and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207