MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Research and Application of Boundary Optimization Algorithm of Forest Resource Vector Data Based on Convolutional Neural Network

2023· article· en· W4391020787 on OpenAlexaff
T Thangarasan, G Moheshkumar, V Surendhiran, Mayooran Namasivayam, R Keerthana, M. Saratha

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceConvolutional neural networkAlgorithmKernel (algebra)Dimension (graph theory)Data miningConvolution (computer science)EncoderSupport vector machineRedundancy (engineering)Boundary (topology)Artificial neural networkPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the deepening of the research and application of GIS (Geographic Information System), the boundary quality of GIS data is becoming more and more important for production and application, and the high accuracy of vector data is the trend of future development. The second-class survey results have the characteristics of accurate and reliable survey data, rich contents and diverse expressions, and can establish forest resources archives for local areas. Therefore, this study established a boundary optimization algorithm for vector data of forest resources based on CNN (Convolutional Neural Network). The network structure proposed in this paper consists of encoder and decoder, and the input dimension of source data is 64×64. The encoder consists of CL(Convolution layer), active layer and PL(Pool layer). The dimension of CL is 24×64×256, which respectively represents the width of convolution kernel, the number of input data columns and the number of convolution kernels. The results show that the vector data processed by the algorithm basically keeps the original shape unchanged, and reduces the redundancy of vector data. At the same time, from the test results, CNN has achieved the best results. Compared with GA (Genetic Algorithm), the accuracy of this method is 3.6% higher. The results verify the reliability of this algorithm.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207