MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972344169 · doi:10.5539/mas.v3n4p62

New Approaches in Estimating Rubberwood Standing Volume Using Airborne Hyperspectral Sensing

2009· article· en· W1972344169 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kamaruzaman Jusoff, Malek Hj. Mohd Yusoff

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperspectral imagingVolume (thermodynamics)Remote sensingNatural rubberEnvironmental scienceTree (set theory)Diameter at breast heightMathematicsForestryGeographyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper focuses on mapping and quantifying the rubberwood plantation’s volume by using the UPM-APSB’s AISA airborne hyperspectral sensor in Lebuh Silikon, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia. The image and field spectral knowledge of the individual standing rubber tree was obtained by image analysis and field work, respectively. The correlations between the different crown area of rubber trees and the diameter at breast height with the ancillary data were obtained. A supervised classification method based on Spectral Angle Mapper (SAM) and spectral matching knowledge was presented and applied to classify the entire image leading towards an estimation of rubberwood volume for the study area. It shows that the rubberwood volume of an old matured unmanaged rubber plantation can easily be predicted with high accuracy obtained through this approach. A total of 20 rubber tree samples were identified, quantified and mapped representing a standing rubberwood volume of 91.44 m3 /ha and a mapping accuracy of 89.84%. The study demonstrated that UPM-APSB’s AISA airborne hyperspectral sensor is capable of mapping individual rubber trees and estimate the standing ruberwood volume with an acceptable accuracy.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score0.769

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Applied ScienceSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207