POTENTIAL OF MULTI-TEMPORAL UAV-BORNE LIDAR IN ASSESSING EFFECTIVENESS OF SILVICULTURAL TREATMENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Silvicultural treatments are practiced to control resource competition and direct forest stand development to meet management objectives. Effective tracking of thinning and partial cutting treatments help in timely mitigation and ensuring future stand productivity. Based on a study conducted in autumn 2015, our findings in a white pine dominant forest stand in Petawawa (Ontario, Canada) showed that almost all individual trees were detectable, structure of individual trees and undergrowth was well pronounced and underlying terrain below dense undisturbed canopy was well captured with UAS based Riegl Vux-1 lidar even at a range of 150 m. Thereafter, the site was re-scanned the following summer with the same system. Besides understanding the difference in distribution patterns due to foliage conditions, co-registering the two datasets, in the current study, we tested the potential of quantifying effectiveness of a partial cutting silvicultural system especially in terms of filling of 3D spaces through vertical or lateral growth and mortality in a very short period of time.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".