An evaluation of alternate remote sensing products for forest inventory, monitoring, and mapping of Douglas-fir forests in western Oregon
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research evaluates the utility of several remote sensing data types for the purpose of mapping forest structure and related attributes at a regional scale. Several sensors were evaluated, including (i) single date Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM); (ii) multitemporal Landsat TM; (iii) Airborne Data Acquisition and Registration (ADAR), a sensor with high spatial resolution; (iv) Airborne Visible-Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS), a sensor with high spectral resolution; and (v) Scanning Lidar Imager Of Canopies By Echo Recovery (SLICER), a lidar sensor that directly measures the height and canopy structure of forest vegetation. To evaluate the ability of each of the sensors to predict stand structure attributes, we assembled a data set consisting of 92 field plots within the Willamette National Forest in the vicinity of the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest. Stand structure attributes included age, basal area, aboveground biomass, mean diameter at breast height (DBH) of dominant and codominant stems, mean and standard deviation of the DBH of all stems, maximum height, and the density of stems with DBH greater than 100 cm. SLICER performed better than any other remote sensing system in its predictions of forest structural attributes. The performance of the imaging sensors (TM, multitemporal TM, ADAR, and AVIRIS) varied with respect to which forest structural variables were being examined. For one group of variables there was little difference in the ability of the these sensors to predict forest structural attributes. For the remaining variables, we found that multitemporal TM was as or more effective than either ADAR or AVIRIS. These results indicate that multitemporal TM should be investigated as an alternative to either hyperspectral or hyperspatial sensors, which are more expensive and more difficult to process than multitemporal Landsat TM.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it