MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029702084 · doi:10.1139/x10-175

Development of a forest structural complexity index based on multispectral airborne remote sensing and topographic dataThis article is one of a selection of papers from Extending Forest Inventory and Monitoring over Space and Time.

2011· article· en· W2029702084 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Jon Pasher, Douglas J. King

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersRural Development AdministrationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Research Centre
KeywordsStructural complexityMultispectral imageRemote sensingRedundancy (engineering)Computer scienceGeospatial analysisMultivariate statisticsForest inventoryField (mathematics)Variance (accounting)Tree (set theory)Forest managementData miningEnvironmental scienceGeographyMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMachine learningAgroforestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents development of a multivariate forest structural complexity index based on relationships between field-based structural variables and geospatial data. Remote sensing has been widely used to model individual forest structural attributes at many scales. As opposed to, or in addition to, individual structural parameters such as leaf area index or tree height, overall structural complexity information can enhance forest inventories and provide a variety of information to forest managers, including identifying damage and disturbance as well as indicators of habitat or biodiversity. In this study, a multivariate modelling technique, redundancy analysis, was implemented to derive a model incorporating both horizontal and vertical structural attributes as predicted by an ensemble of high-resolution multispectral airborne imagery and topographic variables. The first redundancy analysis axis of the final model explained 35% of the total variance of the field variables and was used as the complexity index. With a root mean squared error of 19.9%, the model was capable of differentiating four to five relative levels of complexity. This paper presents the forest ecological and modelling aspects of the research. A related paper presents the remote sensing aspects, including application of the model to map predicted structural complexity, map validation, and testing of the method at multiple scales.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations21
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207