Carbon estimation using sampling to correct LiDAR-assisted enhanced forest inventory estimates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) scanning has been increasingly applied in forest ecosystem surveys. Data from LiDAR describe forest structure and provide attribute information for forest inventory. These attributes can potentially aid in the estimation of biomass and carbon by providing sampling covariates. Therefore, this study explored the accuracy of estimating carbon storage by calibrating LiDAR attributes using list sampling with a ratio estimator. Standing tree carbon and down woody debris carbon were estimated across 10 broad forest types. LiDAR-derived gross total volume was used as a listing factor and big BAF samples to collect field data. Gross total volumes were “corrected” using a ratio estimator. The results show that standing tree carbon was 58.5 Mg C × ha-1 (± 2.9% SE), and dead woody debris carbon 1.8 Mg C × ha-1 (± 7.2% SE). With the exception of one forest type, these estimates were comparable to those derived from the carbon budget model of the Canadian forest sector (CBM-CFS3).
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".