Comparison of Aviris and AISA Airborne Hyperspectral Sensing for Above-Ground Forest Carbon Mapping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monitoring of the 418 million ha of forests in Canada is needed to ensure the sustainable development of these forests. Hyperspectral sensing can provide mapping of forest species, forest health, and above-ground biomass. Airborne two-meter AISA hyperspectral and LIDAR data were acquired by the University of Victoria (UVic) over the Greater Victoria Watershed District (GVWD) test site and compared to NASA's AVIRIS data that had been acquired in the summer of 2002 at 4 m spatial resolution. Tree heights derived from LIDAR data, and allometric equations were used to provide independent ground estimates of biomass. Between-sensor calibration calibrated the AISA data to the same basis as the AVIRIS data. The calibrated reflectance data were used to generate forest species classifications, and biomass estimates for the test site. Average classification accuracies exceeded 89% in mapping major forest species. These products were used to create a map of above-ground carbon for the forested portion of the GVWD test site.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".