Predicting forest stand variables from LiDAR data in the Great Lakes St. Lawrence forest of Ontario
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Models were developed to predict forest stand variables for common species of the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence forest of central Ontario, Canada from light detection and ranging (LiDAR) data. Stands that had undergone various ranges of partial harvesting or initial spacing treatments from multiple geographic sites were considered. A broad forest stratification was adopted and consisted of: (i) natural hardwoods; (ii) natural conifers; and (iii) plantation conifers. Stand top height (R 2 = 0.96, 0.98, and 0.98); average height (R 2 = 0.86, 0.76, and 0.98); basal area (R 2 = 0.80, 0.80, and 0.85); volume (R 2 = 0.89, 0.81, and 0.91); quadratic mean diameter (R 2 = 0.80, 0.68, and 0.83); and density (R 2 = 0.74, 0.71, and 0.73) were predicted from low density (i.e., 0.5 point m -2 ) LiDAR data for these 3 strata, respectively. Key words: light detection and ranging, LiDAR, airborne laser scanning, forest modelling, remote sensing, forest stand variables, Great Lakes – St. Lawrence forest
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it