Terrestrial laser scanning‐derived canopy interception index for predicting rainfall interception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rainfall interception (RI) by forest canopies is an important process in hydrological cycling in forest ecosystems. However, accurately predicting RI is a challenging topic. In this study, a dimensionless descriptor, canopy interception index (CII), for predicting RI was defined. The terrestrial laser scanning was used to estimate CII in four temperate forest types, including Korean pine ( Pinus koraiensis ) plantation forest (KPF) stands, larch ( Larix spp. ) plantation forest (LPF) stands, mixed broadleaved forest (MBF) stands and Mongolian oak ( Quercus mongolica ) forest (MOF) stands. Using the measured RI values over the rainy seasons in 2017 and 2018, CII's performance for predicting RI was tested and also compared with several other indices (LAI: leaf area index, PAI: plant area index and ACH: average canopy height). The results indicated that CII was significantly and strongly related with RI for the four forest types together ( R 2 = 0.79), as well as for an individual forest type ( R 2 = 0.55–0.63). More importantly, its performance was better than those from LAI ( R 2 = 0.33–0.43), PAI ( R 2 = 0.40–0.53) and ACH ( R 2 = 0.35). All those results demonstrated that CII was an efficient index for accurately predicting RI. The potential applications of CII were also discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".