Canopy Height Estimation at Landsat Resolution Using Convolutional Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest structure estimation is very important in geological, ecological and environmental studies. It provides the basis for the carbon stock estimation and effective means of sequestration of carbon sources and sinks. Multiple parameters are used to estimate the forest structure like above ground biomass, leaf area index and diameter at breast height. Among all these parameters, vegetation height has unique standing. In addition to forest structure estimation it provides the insight into long term historical changes and the estimates of stand age of the forests as well. There are multiple techniques available to estimate the canopy height. Light detection and ranging (LiDAR) based methods, being the accurate and useful ones, are very expensive to obtain and have no global coverage. There is a need to establish a mechanism to estimate the canopy height using freely available satellite imagery like Landsat images. Multiple studies are available which contribute in this area. The majority use Landsat images with random forest models. Although random forest based models are widely used in remote sensing applications, they lack the ability to utilize the spatial association of neighboring pixels in modeling process. In this research work, we define Convolutional Neural Network based model and analyze that model for three test configurations. We replicate the random forest based setup of Grant et al., which is a similar state-of-the-art study, and compare our results and show that the convolutional neural networks (CNN) based models not only capture the spatial association of neighboring pixels but also outperform the state-of-the-art.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".