Approaches for estimating stand-level volume using terrestrial laser scanning in a single-scan mode
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most efficient way to obtain stand inventory data with terrestrial laser systems (TLS) is with the single-scan mode, which involves taking one scan at a single point. With a single-scan setup, there will be a nondetection of trees in a plot and the representation of the individual trees will be incomplete. We explore how stand-level volume estimates, based on the single-scan mode, perform compared with standard inventory estimates. We base our study on 166 plots in 12 mature stands dominated by Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and Norway spruce (Picea abies L. Karst) in southern Norway. First, we compare individual-tree volume estimates from TLS with estimates from volume functions and measurements from harvesters. We show that individual-tree volumes can be estimated with high precision and accuracy with TLS in single-scan mode. Secondly, we test three approaches for correction of nondetection relying on model-based estimates of the detection probability obtained by point transect sampling estimators. We show that all three approaches adjust for nondetection and yield stand-level volume estimates that are similar to those obtained by fixed-area sampling. In conclusion, our results indicate that stand-level volume estimates, based on single-scan mode TLS data, perform well compared with standard inventory estimates.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it