MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066017924 · doi:10.5558/tfc82211-2

LiDAR A new tool for forest measurements?

2006· article· en· W2066017924 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David Evans, Scott D. Roberts, Robert Parker

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Forest ServiceU.S. Department of AgricultureNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsLidarForest inventoryRemote sensingTree (set theory)Context (archaeology)Environmental scienceForest managementRangingComputer scienceForestryGeographyAgroforestryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) is a remote sensing technology with strong application potential in forest resource management. It provides high measurement precision that can be used for tree and stand measurements. Although LiDAR has not been used widely as an operational measurement tool, there is a significant body of research and a number of projects at Mississippi State University (MSU) that illustrate the potential for this technology to be incorporated into operational forest assessments. This paper provides basic background on the capabilities of LiDAR in a forest measurement context that illustrates specific examples of LiDAR use including: 1) individual tree assessments, 2) a forest inventory protocol currently being operationally tested, 3) forest structure analysis, and 4) forest typing. Key words: LiDAR, remote sensing, tree identification, tree measurements, forest inventory, forest types

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.012
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.006

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations54
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207