Predicting the occurrence of large-diameter trees using airborne laser scanning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large-diameter trees are important for both ecological and economic reasons, but they have become increasingly rare. Thus, there is an interest in easily locating such trees, and for this purpose, the use of airborne laser scanning (ALS) seems suitable. Our objective was to assess the accuracy of area-based ALS estimation in predicting the number of large-diameter Scots pines (Pinus sylvestris L.). A sample of 856 trees with a diameter >35 cm were measured from 1109 sample plots located in eastern Norway. We fitted negative binomial and zero-inflated negative binomial models for predicting large-diameter tree counts. ALS-derived and external variables were used as predictors when fitting the models. The accuracy was assessed based on the weighted kappa coefficient and cross validation. Our best model was based on three ALS height distribution variables, one horizontal ALS variable, and plot elevation. Its overall accuracy was 65.8% and the weighted kappa was 0.55. Although there was a clear relationship between the response and the proposed predictor variables, fairly large errors in the predicted large-diameter tree counts were common.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".