Model-Based Estimation of Forest Canopy Height and Biomass in the Canadian Boreal Forest Using Radar, LiDAR, and Optical Remote Sensing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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/m2and 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 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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".