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 OpenAlexafffundvenue
Michael A. Wulder, Christopher W. Bater, Nicholas C. Coops, Thomas Hilker, Joanne C. White

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.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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

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

Citations385
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207