Operational implementation of a LiDAR inventory in Boreal Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An existing Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data set captured on the Romeo Malette Forest near Timmins, Ontario, was used to explore and demonstrate the feasibility of such data to enrich existing strategic forest-level resource inventory data. Despite suboptimal calibration data, stand inventory variables such as top height, average height, basal area, gross total volume, gross merchantable volume, and above-ground biomass were estimated from 136 calibration plots and validated on 138 independent plots, with root mean square errors generally less than 20% of mean values. Stand densities (trees per ha) were estimated with less precision (30%). These relationships were used as regression estimators to predict the suite of variables for each 400 m2 tile on the 630 000-ha forest, with predictions capable of being aggregated in any user-defined manner—for a stand, block, or forest—with appropriate estimates of statistical precision. This pilot study demonstrated that LiDAR data may satisfy growing needs for inventory data to scale operational/tactical, through strategic needs, as well as provide spatial detail for planning and the optimization of forest management activities.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".