MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4407601069 · doi:10.12794/metadc1157521

Automated Tree Crown Discrimination Using Three-Dimensional Shape Signatures Derived from LiDAR Point Clouds

2018· dissertation· en· W4407601069 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fariba Sadeghinaeenifard

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoint cloudLidarCrown (dentistry)Tree (set theory)Point (geometry)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceRemote sensingk-d treeGeographyPattern recognition (psychology)MathematicsGeometryAlgorithmMathematical analysisMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Discrimination of different tree crowns based on their 3D shapes is essential for a wide range of forestry applications, and, due to its complexity, is a significant challenge. This study presents a modified 3D shape descriptor for the perception of different tree crown shapes in discrete-return LiDAR point clouds. The proposed methodology comprises of five main components, including definition of a local coordinate system, learning salient points, generation of simulated LiDAR point clouds with geometrical shapes, shape signature generation (from simulated LiDAR points as reference shape signature and actual LiDAR point clouds as evaluated shape signature), and finally, similarity assessment of shape signatures in order to extract the shape of a real tree. The first component represents a proposed strategy to define a local coordinate system relating to each tree to normalize 3D point clouds. In the second component, a learning approach is used to categorize all 3D point clouds into two ranks to identify interesting or salient points on each tree. The third component discusses generation of simulated LiDAR point clouds for two geometrical shapes, including a hemisphere and a half-ellipsoid. Then, the operator extracts 3D LiDAR point clouds of actual trees, either deciduous or evergreen. In the fourth component, a longitude-latitude transformation is applied to simulated and actual LiDAR point clouds to generate 3D shape signatures of tree crowns. A critical step is transformation of LiDAR points from their exact positions to their longitude and latitude positions using the longitude-latitude transformation, which is different from the geographic longitude and latitude coordinates, and labeled by their pre-assigned ranks. Then, natural neighbor interpolation converts the point maps to raster datasets. The generated shape signatures from simulated and actual LiDAR points are called reference and evaluated shape signatures, respectively. Lastly, the fifth component determines the similarity between evaluated and reference shape signatures to extract the shape of each examined tree. The entire process is automated by ArcGIS toolboxes through Python programming for further evaluation using more tree crowns in different study areas. Results from LiDAR points captured for 43 trees in the City of Surrey, British Columbia (Canada) suggest that the modified shape descriptor is a promising method for separating different shapes of tree crowns using LiDAR point cloud data. Experimental results also indicate that the modified longitude-latitude shape descriptor fulfills all desired properties of a suitable shape descriptor proposed in computer science along with leaf-off, leaf-on invariance, which makes this process autonomous from the acquisition date of LiDAR data. In summary, the modified longitude-latitude shape descriptor is a promising method for discriminating different shapes of tree crowns using LiDAR point cloud data.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications→French-language works237,207→