LiDAR and Weibull modeling of diameter and basal area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the ability to predict forest diameter distributions from light detection and ranging (LiDAR) data using Weibull modelling for forest stands in central Ontario. Results suggest that the unimodal 2-parameter Weibull model is a promising technique for the prediction of diameter class distributions, with strong relationships evident for several subgroups (at 95% confidence, r 2 adj =0.83, 0.78, 0.88, 0.80, 0.83, and 0.65, with validation RMSE of 4.09 m 2 /ha, 0.61 stems/ha, 6.05, 0.64, 4.73, and 0.09 for basal area, stem density, and the Weibull a and b parameters for basal area and stem density, respectively). The unimodal models were found to be least effective for the irregularly shaped diameter distributions, particularly for low-density coniferous plots that have undergone shelterwood treatment. A significant improvement in results for these irregular plots was found with a finite mixture modelling approach, suggesting that finite mixture models may extend our ability to predict diameter distributions over large portions of the landscape. Key words: LiDAR, Weibull, finite mixture modeling, diameter class distributions, multiple linear regression
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".