Temporal transferability of LiDAR-based imputation of forest inventory attributes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest inventory and planning decisions are frequently informed by LiDAR data. Repeated LiDAR acquisitions offer an opportunity to update forest inventories and potentially improve forest inventory estimates through time. We leveraged repeated LiDAR and ground measures for a study area in northern Idaho, U.S.A., to predict (via imputation) — across both space and time — four forest inventory attributes: aboveground carbon (AGC), basal area (BA), stand density index (SDI), and total stem volume (Vol). Models were independently developed from 2003 and 2009 LiDAR datasets to spatially predict response variables at both times. Annual rates of change were calculated by comparing response variables between the two collections. Additionally, a pooled model was built by combining reference observations from both years to test if imputation can be performed across measurement dates. The R 2 values for the pooled model were 0.87, 0.90, 0.89, and 0.87 for AGC, BA, SDI, and Vol, respectively. Mapping response variables at the landscape level demonstrates that the relationship between field data and LiDAR metrics holds true even though the data were collected in different years. Pooling data across time increases the number of reference observations available to resource managers and may ultimately improve inventory predictions.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".