Data Assimilation of Growing Stock Volume Using a Sequence of Remote Sensing Data from Different Sensors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS) has implied a disruptive transformation of how data are gathered for forest management planning in Nordic countries. We show in this study that the accuracy of ALS predictions of growing stock volume can be maintained and even improved over time if they are forecasted and assimilated with more frequent but less accurate remote sensing data sources like satellite images, digital photogrammetry, and InSAR. We obtained these results by introducing important methodological adaptations to data assimilation compared to previous forestry studies in Sweden. On a test site in the southwest of Sweden (58 degrees 27 ' N, 13 degrees 39 ' E), we evaluated the performance of the extended Kalman filter and a proposed modified filter that accounts for error correlations. We also applied classical calibration to the remote sensing predictions. We evaluated the developed methods using a dataset with nine different acquisitions of remotely sensed data from a mix of sensors over four years, starting and ending with ALS-based predictions of growing stock volume. The results showed that the modified filter and the calibrated predictions performed better than the standard extended Kalman filter and that at the endpoint the prediction based on data assimilation implied an improved accuracy (25.0% RMSE), compared to a new ALS-based prediction (27.5% RMSE).
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".