Estimating Stand Age from Airborne Laser Scanning Data to Improve Models of Black Spruce Wood Density in the Boreal Forest of Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spatial models that provide estimates of wood quality enable value chain optimization approaches that consider the market potential of trees prior to harvest. Ecological land classification units (e.g., ecosite) and structural metrics derived from Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS) data have been shown to be useful predictors of wood quality attributes in black spruce stands of the boreal forest of Ontario, Canada. However, age drives much of the variation in wood quality among trees, and has not been included as a predictor in previous models because it is poorly represented in inventory systems. The objectives of this study were (i) to develop a predictive model of mean stem age of black spruce-dominated stands, and (ii) refine models of black spruce wood density by including age as a predictor variable. A non-parametric model of stand age that used a k nearest neighbor (kNN) classification based on a random forests (rf) distance metric performed well, producing a root mean square difference (RMSD) of 15 years and explaining 62% of the variance. The subsequent random forests model of black spruce wood density generated from age and ecosite predictors was useful, with a root mean square error (RMSE) of 59.1 kg·m−3. These models bring large-scale wood quality prediction closer to becoming operational by including age and site effects that can be derived from inventory data.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".