Estimation of above ground forest biomass from airborne discrete return laser scanner data using canopy-based quantile estimators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A conceptual model describing why laser height metrics derived from airborne discrete return laser scanner data are highly correlated with above ground biomass is proposed. Following from this conceptual model, the concept of canopy-based quantile estimators of above ground forest biomass is introduced and applied to an uneven-aged, mature to overmature, tolerant hardwood forest. Results from using the 0th, 25th, 50th, 75th and 100th percentiles of the distributions of laser canopy heights to estimate above ground biomass are reported. A comparison of the five models for each dependent variable group did not reveal any overt differences between models with respect to their predictive capabilities. The coefficient of determination (r 2 ) for each model is greater than 0.80 and any two models may differ at most by up to 9%. Differences in root-mean-square error (RMSE) between models for above ground total, stem wood, stem bark, live branch and foliage biomass were 8.1, 5.1, 2.9, 2.1 and 1.1 Mg ha−1, respectively.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".