MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Peer Review #3 of "Classification of high-voltage power line structures in low density ALS data acquired over broad non-urban areas (v0.1)"

2021· peer-review· en· W4210257107 on OpenAlexafffund
Jean-Romain Roussel, Alexis Achim, David Auty

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower Line Communications and Noise
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersMinistère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs
KeywordsLine (geometry)Computer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Airborne laser scanning (ALS) has gained importance over recent decades for multiple uses related to the cartography of landscapes. Processing ALS data over large areas for forest resource estimation and ecological assessments requires efficient algorithms to filter out some points from the raw data and remove human-made structures that would otherwise be mistaken for natural objects. In this paper, we describe an algorithm developed for the segmentation and cleaning of electrical network facilities in low density (2.5 to 13 points/m) ALS point clouds. The algorithm was designed to identify transmission towers, conductor wires and earth wires from high-voltage power lines in natural landscapes. The method is based on two priors i.e. (1) the availability of a map of the highvoltage power lines across the area of interest and (2) knowledge of the type of transmission towers that hold the conductors along a given power line. It was tested on a network totalling 200 km of wires supported by 415 transmission towers with diverse topographies and topologies with an accuracy of 98.6%. This work will help further the automated detection capacity of power line structures, which had previously been limited to high density point clouds in small, urbanised areas. The method is open-source and available online.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.191
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.273 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPower Line Communications and NoiseFrench-language works237,207