Estimating Quebec provincial forest resources using ICESat/GLAS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ground plots, airborne profiling and space lidar (light detection and ranging) measurements of canopy height and crown closure, space radar topographic data, a Landsat cover type map, and a vegetation zone map were used in a model-assisted, two-phase sampling design to estimate the aboveground biomass and carbon resources of Quebec. It was determined that a simple random sampling estimator, with covariance terms added, could be used to quantify the variability of regional Geoscience Laser Altimeter System (GLAS) biomass estimates where interorbit distances are, on average, ≥15 km apart. Prediction error increased standard errors, on average, 24.4%, 4.6%, and 2.8% at the cover type, vegetation zone, and provincial levels, respectively. Inclusion of the covariance term in the calculation of grouped cover type variances increased the vegetation zone standard errors up to 3.7 times and the provincial standard errors 15.6 times. In the southern commercial forests of Quebec, GLAS underestimated ground-based biomass values by 7.3% (stratified linear model) and 10.2% (nonstratified linear model). Quebec forests support 2.57 ± 0.33 gigatonnes of carbon (nonstratified linear model). Approximately 25% of that carbon was found to be located in two southern vegetation zones (northern hardwood and mixedwood), another 25% in two northern vegetation zones (taiga and treed tundra), and the remaining 50% in the boreal zone.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".