MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067024432 · doi:10.5558/tfc76915-6

Early regeneration conifer identification and competition cover assessment using airborne digital camera imagery

2000· article· en· W2067024432 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
K. A. Haddow, Douglas J. King, Darren Pouliot, Doug Pitt, Frederick W. Bell

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityOntario Forest Research InstituteCanadian Forest Service
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsRemote sensingVegetation (pathology)Competition (biology)Environmental scienceSatellite imageryForestryGeographyEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The potential of low cost, high-resolution airborne digital camera imagery for use in early stage forest regeneration assessment was investigated. Airborne imagery with 2.5-cm pixel size was acquired near Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, over a forest vegetation management research site to: i) evaluate capabilities for identification and stem counting of two-year old conifer crop species under leaf-off and leaf-on conditions using classification of spectral and textural image information, and ii) develop models relating vegetation cover parameters to image spectral and texture information. Results indicate strong potential for identification and counting of conifer trees when competing vegetation cover is low or in leaf-off condition. However, systematic decreases in class separability and conifer count accuracy were observed with increasing competition. In image modelling of competition Leaf Area Index and Cover, statistically significant relations were found using primarily spectral measures. Stratification by competition species improved model fits and included texture measures in some models. Key words: airborne remote sensing, forest vegetation management, regeneration, digital cameras, leaf area index, cover, tree classification

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score0.683

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations18
Published2000
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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