MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947493708 · doi:10.3390/f10060471

Mapping Coarse Woody Debris with Random Forest Classification of Centimetric Aerial Imagery

2019· article· en· W2947493708 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Gustavo Lopes Queiroz, Gregory J. McDermid, Guillermo Castilla, Julia Linke, Mir Mustafizur Rahman

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Forest ServiceUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSnagCoarse woody debrisLarge woody debrisRandom forestLidarTaigaEnvironmental scienceForest inventoryRemote sensingForestryDebrisForest ecologyAerial imageForest managementEcosystemGeographyEcologyComputer scienceHabitatArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coarse woody debris (CWD; large parts of dead trees) is a vital element of forest ecosystems, playing an important role in nutrient cycling, carbon storage, fire fuel, microhabitats, and overall forest structure. However, there is a lack of effective tools for identifying and mapping both standing (snags) and downed (logs) CWD in complex natural settings. We applied a random forest machine learning classifier to detect CWD in centimetric aerial imagery acquired over a 270-hectare study area in the boreal forest of Alberta, Canada. We used a geographic object-based image analysis (GEOBIA) approach in the classification with spectral, spatial, and LiDAR (light detection and ranging)-derived height predictor variables. We found CWD to be detected with great accuracy (93.4 ± 4.2% completeness and 94.5 ± 3.2% correctness) when training samples were located within the application area, and with very good accuracy (84.2 ± 5.2% completeness and 92.2 ± 3.2% correctness) when training samples were located outside the application area. The addition of LiDAR-derived variables did not increase the accuracy of CWD detection overall (<2%), but aided significantly (p < 0.001) in the distinction between logs and snags. Foresters and researchers interested in CWD can take advantage of these novel methods to produce accurate maps of logs and snags, which will contribute to the understanding and management of forest ecosystems.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations29
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207