MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146756792 · doi:10.1029/2002jd003288

Modeling lidar waveforms with time‐dependent stochastic radiative transfer theory for remote estimations of forest structure

2003· article· en· W2146756792 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Svetlana Y. Kotchenova, Nikolay V. Shabanov, Yuri Knyazikhin, Anthony B. Davis, Ralph Dubayah, Ranga B. Myneni

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLidarRemote sensingRadiative transferWaveformEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric radiative transfer codesScatteringCanopyMeteorologyPhysicsComputer scienceGeologyOpticsGeographyRadarTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large footprint waveform‐recording laser altimeters (lidars) have demonstrated a potential for accurate remote sensing of forest biomass and structure, important for regional and global climate studies. Currently, radiative transfer analyses of lidar data are based on the simplifying assumption that only single scattering contributes to the return signal, which may lead to errors in the modeling of the lower portions of recorded waveforms in the near‐infrared spectrum. In this study we apply time‐dependent stochastic radiative transfer (RT) theory to model the propagation of lidar pulses through forest canopies. A time‐dependent stochastic RT equation is formulated and solved numerically. Such an approach describes multiple scattering events, allows for realistic representation of forest structure including foliage clumping and gaps, simulates off‐nadir and multiangular observations, and has the potential to provide better approximations of return waveforms. The model was tested with field data from two conifer forest stands (southern old jack pine and southern old black spruce) in central Canada and two closed canopy deciduous forest stands (with overstory dominated by tulip poplar) in eastern Maryland. Model‐simulated signals were compared with waveforms recorded by the Scanning Lidar Imager of Canopies by Echo Recovery (SLICER) over these regions. Model simulations show good agreement with SLICER signals having a slow decay of the waveform. The analysis of the effects of multiple scattering shows that multiply scattered photons magnify the amplitude of the reflected signal, especially that originating from the lower portions of the canopy.

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)0.001
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 score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations56
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207