Fusing diameter distributions predicted by an area-based approach and individual-tree detection in coniferous-dominated forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An area-based approach (ABA) is the most common method used to predict forest attributes with airborne laser scanning (ALS) data. Individual-tree detection (ITD) offers an alternative to ABA; however, few studies have examined the selection of these two alternatives for the prediction of diameter distributions. We predicted diameter distributions by applying ABA and ITD in coniferous-dominated boreal forests using ALS data and examined their predictive performance based on the shapes of the diameter distributions (Gaussian, bimodal, and reverse-J). We proposed an ABA–ITD fusion for diameter distribution prediction. Firstly, the fusion was optimized and its potential was evaluated using an error index. Secondly, we offer two alternatives to incorporate the fusion into ALS-based forest inventories. Our results indicate that ITD is more prone to errors than ABA and that the predictive performance of ITD is more sensitive than ABA to the shape of the diameter distribution. The results show that ITD outperforms ABA with Gaussian diameter distributions. In contrast, ABA was seen as preferable to ITD with bimodal- or reverse-J-shaped diameter distributions. The findings indicate that ABA–ITD fusion has potential for predicting diameter distributions, although the predictive capability of ITD is limited compared with that of ABA.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".