Mapping stand-level forest biophysical variables for a mixedwood boreal forest using lidar: an examination of scanning density
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Light detection and ranging (lidar) is becoming an increasingly popular technology among scientists for the development of predictive models of forest biophysical variables. However, before this technology can be adopted with confidence for long-term monitoring applications in Canada, robust models must be developed that can be applied and validated over large and complex forested areas. This will require "scaling-up" from current models developed from high-density lidar data to low-density data collected at higher altitudes. This paper investigates the effect of lowering the average point spacing of discrete lidar returns on models of forest biophysical variables. Validation of results revealed that high-density models are well correlated with mean dominant height, basal area, crown closure, and average aboveground biomass (R2 = 0.84, 0.89, 0.60, and 0.91, respectively). Low-density models could not accurately predict crown closure (R2 = 0.36). However, they did provide slightly improved estimates for mean dominant height, basal area, and average aboveground biomass (R2 = 0.90, 0.91, and 0.92, respectively). Maps were generated and validated for the entire study area from the low-density models. The ability of low-density models to accurately map key biophysical variables is a positive indicator for the utility of lidar data for monitoring large forested areas.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".