MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006286431 · doi:10.5558/tfc84807-6

The role of LiDAR in sustainable forest management

2008· article· en· W2006286431 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaUniversity of British ColumbiaCanadian Forest Service
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsLidarForest inventoryRemote sensingContext (archaeology)Environmental scienceRangingForest managementSustainable forest managementData collectionKey (lock)Process (computing)Computer scienceEnvironmental resource managementGeographyAgroforestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forest characterization with light detection and ranging (LiDAR) data has recently garnered much scientific and operational attention. The number of forest inventory attributes that may be directly measured with LiDAR is limited; however, when considered within the context of all the measured and derived attributes required to complete a forest inventory, LiDAR can be a valuable tool in the inventory process. In this paper, we present the status of LiDAR remote sensing of forests, including issues related to instrumentation, data collection, data processing, costs, and attribute estimation. The information needs of sustainable forest management provide the context within which we consider future opportunities for LiDAR and automated data processing. Key words: LiDAR, airborne laser altimetry, forest inventory, height, volume, biomass, update, remote sensing

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.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.267
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.200 · 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