Effect of scanning angle on vegetation metrics derived from a nationwide Airborne Laser Scanning acquisition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of scanning angle on vegetation metrics derived from a large area Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS) data acquisition was evaluated in this study. The ALS data were derived from the ongoing acquisition for the new Swedish Nationwide Elevation Model. To make a comparison of scanning angles, a random selection of 2310 sample plots (0.01 ha in size) was taken from two large forested areas in the north and south of Sweden. Only plots that had ALS data from two different acquisitions on the same day were used: the first scanned at nadir (0° scanning angle) and the second with an absolute scanning angle ranging from 0° to a nominal 20°. For each plot, 32 plot-level vegetation metrics were calculated from the ALS data for each pair of scanning angles. The ALS metrics for each pair were then compared using a nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The results indicated that most metrics commonly used in area-based prediction of forest variables were relatively unaffected by high scanning angles, up to 20°. However, the vegetation ratio and the understory ratio from scanning angles greater than 10° were significantly different from those derived from a 0° scanning angle.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 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".