Automating Plot-Level Stem Analysis from Terrestrial Laser Scanning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) provides an accurate means of analyzing individual tree attributes, and can be extended to plots using multiple TLS scans. However, multiple TLS scans may reduce the effectiveness of individual tree structure quantification, often due to understory occupation, mutual tree occlusion, and other influences. The procedure to delineate accurate tree attributes from plot scans involves onerous steps and automated integration is challenging in the literature. This study proposes a fully automatic approach composed of ground filtering, stem detection, and stem form extraction algorithms, with emphasis on accuracy and feasibility. The delineated attributes can be useful to analyze terrain, tree biomass and fiber quality. The automation was experimented on a mature pine plot in Finland with both single scan (SS) and multiple scans (MS) datasets. With mensuration as reference, digital terrain models (DTM), stem locations, diameters at breast height (DBHs), stem heights, and stem forms of the whole plot were extracted and validated. Results of this study were best using the multiple scans (MS) dataset, where 76% of stems were detected (n = 49). Height extraction accuracy was 0.68 (r2) and 1.7 m (RMSE), and DBH extraction accuracy was 0.97 (r2) and 0.90 cm (RMSE). Height-wise stem diameter extraction accuracy was 0.76 (r2) and 2.4 cm (RMSE).
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".