Stand-level wind damage can be assessed using diachronic photogrammetric canopy height models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diachronic photogrammetric canopy height models can be used to quantify at a fine scale changes in dominant height and wood volume following storms. The regular renewal of aerial surveys makes this approach appealing for monitoring forest changes. The increasing availability of aerial photographs and the development of dense matching algorithms open up new possibilities to assess the effects of storm events on forest canopies. The objective of this research is to assess the potential of diachronic canopy height models derived from photogrammetric point clouds (PCHM) to quantify changes in dominant height and wood volume of a broadleaved forest following a major storm. PCHMs derived from aerial photographs acquired before and after a storm event were calibrated using 25 field plots to estimate dominant height and volume using various modeling approaches. The calibrated models were combined with a reference damage maps to estimate both the within-stand damage variability, and the amount of volume impacted. Dominant height was predicted with a root mean squared error (RMSE) of 4%, and volume with RMSEs ranging from 24 to 32% according to the type of model. The volume impacted by storm was in the range of 42–76%. Overall, the maps of dominant height changes provided more details about within-stand damage variability than conventional photointerpretation do. The study suggests a promising potential for exploiting PCHM in pursuit of a rapid localization and quantification of wind-throw damages, given an adapted sampling design to calibrate models.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".