Assessing forest metrics with a ground-based scanning lidar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A ground-based scanning lidar (light detection and ranging) system was evaluated to assess its potential utility for tree-level forest mensuration data extraction. Ground-based-lidar and field-mensuration data were collected for two forest plots: one located within a red pine (Pinus resinosa Ait.) plantation and another in a mixed deciduous stand dominated by sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.). Five lidar point cloud scans were collected from different vantage points for each plot over a 6-h period on 5 July 2002 using an Optech Inc. ILRIS-3D laser imager. Field- validation data were collected manually over several days during the same time period. Parameters that were measured in the field or derived from manual field measures included (i) stem location, (ii) tree height, (iii) stem diameter at breast height (DBH), (iv) stem density, and (v) timber volume. These measures were then compared with those derived from the ILRIS-3D data (i.e., the lidar point cloud data). It was found that all parameters could be measured or derived from the data collected by the ground-based lidar system. There was a slight systematic underestimation of mean tree height resulting from canopy shadow effects and suboptimal scan sampling distribution. Timber volume estimates for both plots were within 7% of manually derived estimates. Tree height and DBH parameters have the potential for objective measurement or derivation with little manual intervention. However, locating and counting trees within the lidar point cloud, particularly in the multitiered deciduous plot, required the assistance of field-validation data and some subjective interpretation. Overall, ground-based lidar demonstrates promise for objective and consistent forest metric assessment, but work is needed to refine and develop automatic feature identification and data extraction techniques.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".