Quality Assessment of Terrestrial Laser Scanner Ecosystem Observations Using Pulse Trajectories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considering the trajectories of pulses from terrestrial laser scanners (TLS) can provide refined models of occlusion and improve the assessment of observation quality in forests and other ecosystems. By considering the space traversed by light detection and ranging (lidar) pulses, we can separate empty regions of an ecosystem sample from unobserved regions of an ecosystem sample. We apply this method of TLS observation quality assessment, and analyze Compact Biomass Lidar 2 (CBL2) TLS observations of a single tree and of a deciduous forest stand. We show the contribution of information from each TLS scan to be inconsistent and the combination of multiple scans to have diminishing returns for new information, without guaranteeing complete coverage of a sample. We quantitatively investigate the effects of imposing information quality requirements on TLS sampling, for example, requiring minimum numbers of observations in each region or requiring regions to be observed from a minimum number of independent scans. We show empirically that rigid, predefined TLS sampling schemes, even with hypothetically dense coverage, cannot guarantee successful samples in geometrically complex systems such as forests. Through these methods, we lay the groundwork for on-the-fly assessment of observation quality according to several modeling-relevant metrics which enhance TLS ecosystem assessment. We also establish the value of flexible deployment options for TLS instruments, including the ability to deploy at a variety of heights.
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".