Detecting moose (<i>Alces alces</i>) browsing damage in young boreal forests from airborne laser scanning data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large herbivores can have large impacts on their habitats through extensive browsing. Similarly, human actions can have large impacts both on habitats and on the animals utilizing the habitats. In Finland, the increase in clear-cut areas has been highly positive for moose in particular, because these areas provide an easy and abundant source of winter food. For the forest owners, moose browsing causes growth and quality losses or even the destruction of whole stand. We aimed to identify moose browsing damage from airborne laser scanning (ALS) data and to predict damaged areas. The data was used to detect the difference in forest structure caused by moose browsing (lost branches and twigs) in relation to reference areas without moose browsing. The damaged areas were located, measured, and confirmed by forestry professionals, and ALS data was collected after the damage. In the end, the structural differences that browsing caused proved to be clear enough to be detected with metrics calculated from ALS data. Many variables were significantly different between the damage and no-damage areas. With logistic regression, we were able to differentiate the areas with significant, large-scale damage from no-damage areas with a 76% accuracy. However, the model was too keen to predict false-positive cases (classifying no-damage areas as damaged). It was shown that ALS data can be used in detecting moose browsing damage in a case where the damage is extremely severe (like in here). Yet, to make the results more accurate, better field data about the damaged areas would be needed.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".