Comparison of the inversion of two canopy reflectance models for mapping forest crown closure using imaging spectroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compare the inversion of two canopy reflectance models to estimate forest crown closure (CC) using an EO-1 Hyperion image: the Kuusk–Nilson forest reflectance and transmittance (FRT) model, and the Li–Strahler geometric–optical model. For predicting CC on a per-pixel basis, the FRT model inversion is carried out by minimizing a merit function that provides a measure of the difference between the reflectance simulated by the FRT model and the reflectance originating from optimal band selection of Hyperion data. The inversion of the Li–Strahler model mainly depends on the relationship between the scene component “sunlit background” and forest structural parameters. We complement prediction deficiencies of the inverted Li–Strahler model CC using a spatial interpolation algorithm (regression kriging) in infeasible regions. Field-measured CCs of 40 sample sites are used to validate the inversion quality of both models. The results indicate that the Li–Strahler model inversion (R2 = 0.67, RMSE = 0.043) performs better than the FRT model inversion (R2 = 0.53, RMSE = 0.072) for CC retrieval. Estimated CC using the Li–Strahler model inversion combined with spatial interpolation yield a final, continuous CC map for the Longmenhe forest nature reserve in China, which is used as a study area for this work. The advantages and disadvantages of these two models inversion combined with imaging spectrometer data for mapping forest CC are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".