MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7051522403

OBJECT-BASED URBAN TREE COVER EXTRACTION FROM HIGH SPATIAL RESOLUTION OPTICAL AND LIDAR IMAGERY: TECHNIQUES AND DATA INTEGRATION

2010· article· en· W7051522403 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrthophotoLidarTree (set theory)Cover (algebra)Extraction (chemistry)Displacement (psychology)Image resolutionUrban areaMeasure (data warehouse)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tree canopy cover is a fundamental measure of the urban forest, which benefits a city socially and environmentally. In this thesis, methods are proposed to map urban tree cover. Chapter 2 presents an object-based tree cover extraction method using some new techniques for commonly available high-spatial-resolution colour-infrared imagery. The overall accuracy achieved for the 23 645 ha urban growth area of London, Ontario was 89.73%. This accuracy can be improved further by integrating LiDAR surface information. However, tall objects appear displaced in traditional orthoimages, causing misclassification. Chapter 3 presents a new method for correcting horizontal relief displacement of tall objects in orthorectified imagery without requiring the original aerial images and flight parameters. An object-based tree cover extraction method was developed to test the effectiveness of this correction. The overall accuracy for a 1600 ha sub-scene was improved significantly: from 94.66% (uncorrected) to 96.07% (empirically corrected) and 96.98% (geometrically corrected).

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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.268 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)→Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion research→French-language works237,207→