MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132108972 · doi:10.3390/rs61110750

Estimation of Airborne Lidar-Derived Tropical Forest Canopy Height Using Landsat Time Series in Cambodia

2014· article· en· W2132108972 on OpenAlexafffund
Tetsuji Ota, Oumer S. Ahmed, Steven E. Franklin, Michael A. Wulder, Tsuyoshi Kajisa, Nobuya Mizoue, Shigejiro Yoshida, Gen Takao, Yasumasa Hirata, Naoyuki Furuya, Takio Sano, Heng Sokh, Vuthy Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest ServiceTrent University
FundersNatural Resources CanadaU.S. Forest ServiceCanadian Forest ServiceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
KeywordsMean squared errorSeries (stratigraphy)LidarCanopyRegression analysisRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceLinear regressionRandom forestTree canopyTime seriesRegressionStatisticsMathematicsGeographyComputer scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we test and demonstrate the utility of disturbance and recovery information derived from annual Landsat time series to predict current forest vertical structure (as compared to the more common approaches, that consider a sample of airborne Lidar and single-date Landsat derived variables). Mean Canopy Height (MCH) was estimated separately using single date, time series, and the combination of single date and time series variables in multiple regression and random forest (RF) models. The combination of single date and time series variables, which integrate disturbance history over the entire time series, overall provided better MCH prediction than using either of the two sets of variables separately. In general, the RF models resulted in improved performance in all estimates over those using multiple regression. The lowest validation error was obtained using Landsat time series variables in a RF model (R2 = 0.75 and RMSE = 2.81 m). Combining single date and time series data was more effective when the RF model was used (opposed to multiple regression). The RMSE for RF mean canopy height prediction was reduced by 13.5% when combining the two sets of variables as compared to the 3.6% RMSE decline presented by multiple regression. This study demonstrates the value of airborne Lidar and long term Landsat observations to generate estimates of forest canopy height using the random forest algorithm.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207