A Workflow to Minimize Shadows in UAV-based Orthomosaics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shadows from buildings, terrain, and other elevated features represent lost and/or impaired data values that hinder the quality of optical images acquired under all but the most diffuse illumination conditions. This is particularly problematic in high-spatial-resolution imagery acquired from unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which generally operate very close to the ground. However, the flexibility and low cost of re-deployment of the platform also presents opportunities, which we capitalize on in a new workflow designed to eliminate shadows from UAV-based orthomosaics. Our straightforward, three-step procedure relies on images acquired from two different UAV flights, where illumination conditions produce diverging shadow orientations: one before solar noon and another after. From this multi-temporal image stack, we first identify and then eliminate shadows from individual orthophoto components, then construct the final orthomosaic using a feature-matching strategy with the commercial software package Photoscan. The utility of our strategy is demonstrated over a treed-wetland study site in northwestern Alberta, Canada: a complex scene containing wide variety of shadows, which our workflow effectively eliminated. While shadow-reduced orthomosaics are generally less useful for feature-identification tasks that rely on the shadow element of image interpretation, they create a superior foundation for most other image-processing routines, including classification and change-detection.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
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".