Forest structure estimation and pattern exploration from discrete-return lidar in subalpine forests of the central Rockies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluates the relative ability of simple light detection and ranging (lidar) indices (i.e., mean and maximum heights) and statistically derived canonical correlation analysis (CCA) variables attained from discrete-return lidar to estimate forest structure and forest biomass variables for three temperate subalpine forest sites. Both lidar and CCA explanatory variables performed well with lidar models having slightly higher explained variance and lower root mean square error. Adjusted R 2 values were 0.93 and 0.93 for mean height, 0.74 and 0.73 for leaf area index, and 0.93 and 0.85 for all carbon in live biomass for the lidar and CCA explanatory regression models, respectively. The CCA results indicate that the primary source of variability in canopy structure is related to forest height, biomass, and total leaf area, and the second most important source of variability is related to the amount of midstory foliage and tree density. When stand age is graphed as a function of individual plot scores for canonicals one and two, there is a clear relationship with stand age and the development of stand structure. Lidar-derived biomass and related estimates developed in this work will be used to parameterize decision-support tools for analysis of carbon cycle impacts as part of the North American Carbon Program.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".