Drone data for decision making in regeneration forests: from raw data to actionable insights<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we aim at developing ways to directly translate raw drone data into actionable insights, thus enabling us to make management decisions directly from drone data. Drone photogrammetric data and data analytics were used to model stand-level immediate tending need and cost in regeneration forests. Field reference data were used to train and validate a logistic model for the binary classification of immediate tending need and a multiple linear regression model to predict the cost to perform the tending operation. The performance of the models derived from drone data was compared to models utilizing the following alternative data sources: airborne laser scanning data (ALS), prior information from forest management plans (Prior) and the combination of drone +Prior and ALS +Prior. The use of drone data and prior information outperformed the remaining alternatives in terms of classification of tending needs, whereas drone data alone resulted in the most accurate cost models. Our results are encouraging for further use of drones in the operational management of regeneration forests and show that drone data and data analytics are useful for deriving actionable insights.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".