Field calibration of merchantable and sawlog volumes in forest inventories based on airborne laser scanning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many countries, airborne laser scanning (ALS) inventories are implemented to produce predictions for stand-level forest attributes. Nevertheless, mature stands are usually field-visited prior to clear-cutting, so some measurements can be conducted on these stands to calibrate the ALS-based predictions. In this paper, we developed a seemingly unrelated multivariate mixed-effects model system that includes component models for basal area, merchantable volume, and sawlog volume for 225 m2 cells. We used ALS data and accurately positioned cut-to-length harvester observations from clear-cut stands dominated by Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.). Our aim was to study the effect of 1–10 local angle-gauge basal area measurements on the accuracy of predicted merchantable and sawlog volumes. A seemingly unrelated mixed-effect model system was fitted to estimate cross-model correlations in residuals and random effects, which were then utilized to predict all the random effects of the system for calibrated stand-level predictions. The 10 angle-gauge plots decreased the relative root mean square error (RMSE%) of the basal area and merchantable volume predictions from 16.8% to 10.5% and from 15.8% to 11.9%, respectively. Cross-model correlations of the stand effects of sawlog volume with the other responses were low; therefore, the initial RMSE% of ∼22% was decreased only marginally by the calibration.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".