Comparing ALS and Image-Based Point Cloud Metrics and Modelled Forest Inventory Attributes in a Complex Coastal Forest Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Digital aerial photogrammetry (DAP) is emerging as an alternate data source to airborne laser scanning (ALS) data for three-dimensional characterization of forest structure. In this study we compare point cloud metrics and plot-level model estimates derived from ALS data and an image-based point cloud generated using semi-global matching (SGM) for a complex, coastal forest in western Canada. Plot-level estimates of Lorey’s mean height (H), basal area (G), and gross volume (V) were modelled using an area-based approach. Metrics and model outcomes were evaluated across a series of strata defined by slope and canopy cover, as well as by image acquisition date. We found statistically significant differences between ALS and SGM metrics for all strata for five of the eight metrics we used for model development. We also found that the similarity between metrics from the two data sources generally increased with increasing canopy cover, particularly for upper canopy metrics, whereas trends across slope classes were less consistent. Model outcomes from ALS and SGM were comparable. We found the greatest difference in model outcomes was for H (ΔRMSE% = 5.04%). By comparison, ΔRMSE% was 2.33% for G and 3.63% for V. We did not discern any corresponding trends in model outcomes across slope and canopy cover strata, or associated with different image acquisition dates.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".