Estimation of biophysical characteristics for highly variable mixed-conifer stands using small-footprint lidar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although lidar data are widely available from commercial contractors, operational use in North America is still limited by both cost and the uncertainty of large-scale application and associated model accuracy issues. We analyzed whether small-footprint lidar data obtained from five noncontiguous geographic areas with varying species and structural composition, silvicultural practices, and topography could be used in a single regression model to produce accurate estimates of commonly obtained forest inventory attributes on the Nez Perce Reservation in northern Idaho, USA. Lidar-derived height metrics were used as predictor variables in a best-subset multiple linear regression procedure to determine whether a suite of stand inventory variables could be accurately estimated. Empirical relationships between lidar-derived height metrics and field-measured dependent variables were developed with training data and acceptable models validated with an independent subset. Models were then fit with all data, resulting in coefficients of determination and root mean square errors (respectively) for seven biophysical characteristics, including maximum canopy height (0.91, 3.03 m), mean canopy height (0.79, 2.64 m), quadratic mean DBH (0.61, 6.31 cm), total basal area (0.91, 2.99 m2/ha), ellipsoidal crown closure (0.80, 0.08%), total wood volume (0.93, 24.65 m3/ha), and large saw-wood volume (0.75, 28.76 m3/ha). Although these regression models cannot be generalized to other sites without additional testing, the results obtained in this study suggest that for these types of mixed-conifer forests, some biophysical characteristics can be adequately estimated using a single regression model over stands with highly variable structural characteristics and topography.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".