Bibliographic record
Abstract
igital elevation models (DEMs) form the basis of LiDAR derived tree height measurements and other topographic modeling needs within natural resource applications. We compared 2873 digital total station elevations to the closest discrete LiDAR elevation point and DEM raster cell across several forest and topographic settings. We also examined limiting comparisons to points within 0.5 m and within one meter. Using all nearest LiDAR points, average total station plot elevation differences ranged from -0.06 m (SD 0.40) to -0.59 m (SD 0.23) indicating that LiDAR elevations are higher than actual elevations. LiDAR DEM differences ranged from -0.09 (SD 0.41) to -0.56 m (SD 0.70). We also compared mapping-grade GPS receiver measurements to LiDAR point elevation and DEMs. Average plot GPS elevation differences ranged from 0.24 (SD 1.55) to 2.82 m (SD 4.58) for the nearest LiDAR point, and from 0.27 (SD 2.33) to 2.69 m (SD 5.06) for LiDAR DEMs. We believe that our efforts represent one of the most robust studies of LiDAR measurement errors available in published literature. The relatively small measurement differences that we found between LiDAR elevations and our most reliable field-based method of elevations, the digital total station, demonstrate the potential for LiDAR in forestry and natural resource applications.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".