Large-scale leaf area index inversion algorithms from high-resolution airborne imagery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large-scale leaf area index (LAI) inversion algorithms were developed to determine the LAI of a forest located in Gatineau Park, Canada, using high-resolution colour and colour infrared (CIR) digital airborne imagery. The algorithms are parameter-independent and developed based on the principles of optical field instruments for gap fraction measurements. Cloud-free colour and CIR images were acquired on 21 August 2007 with 35 and 60 cm nominal ground pixel size, respectively. Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), maximum likelihood and object-oriented classifications, and principal component analysis (PCA) methods were applied to calculate the mono-directional gap fraction. Subsequently, LAI was derived from inversion and compared with ground measurements made in 54 plots of 20 by 20 m using hemispherical photography between 10 and 20 August 2007. There was high inter-correlation (the Pearson correlation coefficient, R > 0.5, p < 0.01) among LAI values inverted using the classifications and PCA methods, but neither were highly correlated with LAI inverted from the NDVI method. LAI inverted from the NDVI-based gap fraction significantly correlated with ground-measured LAI (R = 0.63, root mean square error (RMSE) = 0.52), while LAI inverted from the classification and PCA-derived gap fraction showed poor correlation with ground-measured LAI. Consequently, the NDVI method was used to invert LAI for the whole study area and produce a 20‐m resolution LAI map.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".