MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3086105597 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2020.3018638

Model-Based Estimation of Forest Canopy Height and Biomass in the Canadian Boreal Forest Using Radar, LiDAR, and Optical Remote Sensing

2020· article· en· W3086105597 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael L. Benson, Leland Pierce, Kathleen M. Bergen, Kamal Sarabandi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsRemote sensingLidarRadarTree canopyTaigaEnvironmental scienceRangingVegetation (pathology)CanopyPolarimetryBiomass (ecology)Backscatter (email)Computer scienceMeteorologyGeographyGeologyForestryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the fundamental technical challenges of any new spaceborne vegetation remote sensing mission is the determination of what sensor(s) to place onboard and what, if any, overlapping modes of operation they will employ as each onboard sensor adds significant cost to the overall mission. In this article, the remote sensing of forest parameters using multimodal remote sensing is presented. In particular, polarimetric radar, Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR), and near-IR passive optical sensing platforms are employed in conjunction with physics-based models. These models are used to accurately estimate forest aboveground biomass as well as canopy height in homogeneous areas. It is shown that this proposed method is capable of achieving high accuracy estimates while using minimal ancillary data in the estimation process. We present a method to combine measured data sets with our geometric and electromagnetic sensor models to develop a forest parameter estimation algorithm that fuses multimodal remote sensing technologies with a minimal amount of ground information and yields an accurate estimate of forest structure including dry biomass and canopy height with rms errors of 1.6 kg/m <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> and 1.68 m respectively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.812

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207