MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003230226 · doi:10.1080/02827581.2011.624116

A fine-scale model for area-based predictions of tree-size-related attributes derived from LiDAR canopy heights

2011· article· en· W2003230226 on OpenAlexaff
Steen Magnussen, Erik Næsset, Terje Gobakken, Gordon W. Frazer

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Forest Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
FundersNorges Miljø- og Biovitenskapelige Universitet
KeywordsLidarBasal areaCanopyAllometryRangingScale (ratio)StatisticsMathematicsTree (set theory)Forest inventoryVariance (accounting)Remote sensingCartographyGeographyForest managementForestryEcologyGeodesy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a conceptual (generic) allometric (power function) relationship between tree-size-related forest inventory attributes (e.g. biomass, volume, basal area, quadratic mean diameter, Lorey's height) and canopy height (CH) as estimated from first-return airborne light detection and ranging (LiDAR) pulses. A data-driven estimation of the parameters in the power function is complicated, so we recommend an alternative approximation obtained via a linearisation step. Only two predictors appear in the approximation: the mean CH and the variance of CHs within the spatial domain supported by field data. The proposed model eliminates an otherwise complex search for the best predictors amongst a large number of candidate LiDAR metrics. It also facilitates model comparisons and interpretation. Fit statistics estimated for volume, basal area, quadratic mean diameter and Lorey's height – using three separate datasets from Norway – were compelling.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 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

Citations41
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207