Mixtures of airborne lidar-based approaches improve predictions of forest structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most common method for modeling forest attributes with airborne lidar, the area-based approach, involves summarizing the point cloud of individual plots and relating this to attributes of interest. Tree- and voxel-based approaches have been considered as alternatives to the area-based approach but are rarely considered in an area-based context. We estimated three forest attributes (basal area, overstory biomass, and volume) across 1680 field plots in Arizona and New Mexico. Variables from the three lidar approaches (area, tree, and voxel) were created for each plot. Random forests were estimated using subsets of variables based on each individual lidar approach and mixtures of each approach. Boruta feature selection was performed on variable subsets, including the mixture of all lidar-approach predictors (KS-Boruta). A corrected paired t test was utilized to compare six validated models (area-Boruta, tree-Boruta, voxel-Boruta, KS-Boruta, KS-all, and ridge-all) for each forest attribute. Based on significant reductions in error (SMdAPE), basal area and biomass were best modeled with KS-Boruta, while volume was best modeled with KS-all. Analysis of variable importance shows that voxel-based predictors are critical for the prediction of the three forest attributes. This study highlights the importance of multiresolution voxel-based variables for modeling forest attributes in an area-based context.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".