Unsupervised algorithms to detect single trees in a mixed-species and multilayered Mediterranean forest using LiDAR data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate measurement of forest growing stock is a prerequisite for implementing climate-smart forestry strategies. This study deals with the use of airborne laser scanning data to assess carbon stock at the tree level. It aims to demonstrate that the combined use of two unsupervised techniques will improve the accuracy of estimation supporting sustainable forest management. Based on the heterogeneity of tree height and point cloud density, we classified 31 forest stands into four complexity categories. The point cloud of each stand was further divided into three horizontal layers, improving the accuracy of tree detection at tree level for which we calculated volume and carbon stock. The average accuracy of tree detection was 0.48. The accuracy was higher for forest stands with lower tree density and higher frequency of large trees, as well as a dense point cloud (0.65). The prediction of carbon stock was higher with a bias ranging from –0.3% to 1.5% and a root mean square error ranging from 0.14% to 1.48%.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".