ArticlePeerJ2023
Data science competition for cross-site individual tree species identification from airborne remote sensing data.
Article in PeerJ, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Data on individual tree crowns from remote sensing have the potential to advance forest ecology by providing information about forest composition and structure with a continuous spatial coverage over large spatial extents. Classifying individual trees to their taxonomic species over large regions from remote sensing data is challenging. Methods to classify individual species are often accurate for common species, but perform poorly for less common species and when applied to new sites. We ran a data science competition to help identify effective methods for the task of classification of individual crowns to species identity. The competition included data from three sites to assess each methods' ability to generalize patterns across two sites simultaneously and apply methods to an untrained site. Three different metrics were used to assess and compare model performance. Six teams participated, representing four countries and nine individuals. The highest performing method from a previous competition in 2017 was applied and used as a baseline to understand advancements and changes in successful methods. The best species classification method was based on a two-stage fully connected neural network that significantly outperformed the baseline random forest and gradient boosting ensemble methods. All methods generalized well by showing relatively strong performance on the trained sites (accuracy = 0.46-0.55, macro F1 = 0.09-0.32, cross entropy loss = 2.4-9.2), but generally failed to transfer effectively to the untrained site (accuracy = 0.07-0.32, macro F1 = 0.02-0.18, cross entropy loss = 2.8-16.3). Classification performance was influenced by the number of samples with species labels available for training, with most methods predicting common species at the training sites well (maximum F1 score of 0.86) relative to the uncommon species where none were predicted. Classification errors were most common between species in the same genus and different species that occur in the same habitat. Most methods performed better than the baseline in detecting if a species was not in the training data by predicting an untrained mixed-species class, especially in the untrained site. This work has highlighted that data science competitions can encourage advancement of methods, particularly by bringing in new people from outside the focal discipline, and by providing an open dataset and evaluation criteria from which participants can learn.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.