MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967789481 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2014.6946357

Mapping tree species in a boreal forest area using RapidEye and LiDAR data

2014· article· en· W1967789481 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaohui Yang, Nadia Rochdi, Jinkai Zhang, James Banting, David Rolfson, Chelsea King, K. Staenz, Shane Patterson, Brett G. Purdy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsAlberta InnovatesAlberta Environment and Protected AreasUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLidarRandom forestRemote sensingTaigaForest inventorySupport vector machineRed edgeNormalized Difference Vegetation IndexEnvironmental scienceForest managementComputer scienceGeographyForestryArtificial intelligenceEcologyLeaf area indexAgroforestryHyperspectral imaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tree species composition is an indicator of forest type. It is also a required attribute in forest inventory, biomass and stand volume estimation. Accurate mapping tree species is essential for forest management purposes. In this paper the performances of LiDAR, RapidEye data, and their combination on tree species classification were investigated in a boreal forest. Both Random forest (RF) and support vector machine (SVM) classification methods were performed. Results indicated that combined LiDAR and RapidEye data improved the classification accuracy significantly, compare to using each type of data separately. The RF classifier outperformed SVM for tree species classification. Six variables that contributed most to classification accuracy were digital elevation model, slope, canopy height, red-edge NDVI, and red-edge and Near infrared bands of RapidEye data.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207