MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904790740 · doi:10.1080/07038992.2018.1461557

Transferability of Lidar-derived Basal Area and Stem Density Models within a Northern Idaho Ecoregion

2018· article· en· W2904790740 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Patrick A. Fekety, Michael J. Falkowski, Andrew T. Hudak, Theresa B. Jain, Jeffrey S. Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Remote Sensing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Idaho
KeywordsForest inventoryBasal areaLidarEcoregionForestryTransferabilityGeographyTerrainEnvironmental scienceField (mathematics)CartographyRemote sensingForest managementStatisticsEcologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A patchwork of disjunct lidar collections is rapidly developing across the USA, often acquired with different acquisition goals and parameters and without field data for forest inventory. Airborne lidar and coincident field data have been used to estimate forest attributes across individual lidar extents, where forest measurements are collected using project-specific inventory designs. This research explores predicting forest attributes at locations not represented in the training data by combining lidar and field measurements from ecologically similar forests. Using field measurements from six lidar units, random forests regression models were created by systematically withholding forest inventory data from one lidar unit and using the forest inventory data from the other five units to predict basal area and stem density at the withheld unit. Results indicate that BA models produce more accurate predictions than stem density models when transferred to a lidar unit that did not contain field data. Relative root mean square errors calculated from the withheld field plots ranged between 32.3%–50.1% for BA and 40.7%–67.3% for stem density models. It is concluded that forest managers may use predictive models constructed from ecologically similar forests to obtain a preliminary estimate of resources, until local field measurement can be obtained.RÉSUMÉUn ensemble disparate de collections de données lidar se développe rapidement aux États-Unis, souvent acquises avec des objectifs et des paramètres différents et sans données de terrains relatives aux inventaires forestiers. Des données de terrain concomitantes sont utilisées pour estimer des attributs forestiers au sein d’étendues de lidar aéroporté individuelles, pour lesquelles les mesures d’intérêt correspondent à des modèles d’inventaires déterminés. En combinant des mesures de terrain et de lidar provenant de forêts écologiquement similaires, cette étude examine la prédiction d’attributs forestiers à des endroits où des données d’entrainement sont absentes. En utilisant des mesures de terrain, des modèles de régression produits par des forêts d’arbres décisionnels ont été créés pour six unités de lidar. Un procédé systématique a été suivi par lequel les données de chaque unité sont retenues et la surface terrière et densité des tiges de cette unité sont ensuite estimés avec les données des cinq unités restantes. Les résultats indiquent que les estimations de surface terrière sont plus robustes que pour la densité de tiges lorsque les modèles sont transférés à une unité de lidar pour laquelle les données de terrain sont absents. Les erreurs quadratiques moyennes relatives calculées pour les échantillons retenus sont entre 32.3 % et 50.1 % pour les modèles de surface terrière et entre 40.7 % et 67.3 % pour la densité des tiges. Nous concluons que, jusqu'à ce que des mesures de terrain locales puissent être acquises, il est possible d’obtenir des estimations préliminaires de ressources forestières en utilisant des modèles prédictifs construits à partir d'échantillons de forêts écologiquement similaires.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations54
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Remote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207