Raising the Bar: Height Threshold and Grid Resolution Influence Repeatability of Crown Closure Estimation by Airborne Laser Surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monitoring crown closure evolution using multi-temporal Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) surveys is a method that we expect to be increasingly adopted given the availability of LiDAR sensors and the accumulating survey archives. However, little attention was devoted to comparing crown closure estimates from independent surveys. Although survey parameters cannot be modified after the data collection, we speculate that the error associated to crown closure estimates comparison can be reduced by selecting optimal post-survey parameters. In this study, we compared crown closure estimates of three airborne LiDAR surveys from 2018 (40 pt/m²) used as a reference, and two lower-density surveys from 2016 (4.5 pt/m²) and 2018 (2 pt/m²). We studied the effect of the height threshold used to separate canopy points and the grid resolution, using skewness and variance of lagged difference of crown closure. Crown closure estimates using low height thresholds were more different across surveys, resulting in higher root mean squared error (RMSE), bias and more different variograms. Results show that optimal height threshold was 3 m and grid resolution was 25 m, although there was room for decision (RMSE of 7% and 5%, and bias of 4% and 0% for 2016 and 2018 low-density surveys).
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 | 0.009 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".