MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205539088 · doi:10.1071/wf21004

Predicting black spruce fuel characteristics with Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS)

2021· article· en· W4205539088 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Hilary Cameron, Dave Schroeder, Jennifer L. Beverly

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Wildland Fire · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsGovernment of AlbertaUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta Agriculture and ForestryUniversity of Lethbridge
KeywordsBlack spruceCanopyLidarEnvironmental scienceTaigaLasso (programming language)Remote sensingBorealMeteorologyGeographyForestryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wildfire decision support systems combine fuel maps with other fire environment variables to predict fire behaviour and guide management actions. Until recently, financial and technological constraints have limited provincial fuel maps to relatively coarse spatial resolutions. Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS), a remote sensing technology that uses LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging), is becoming an increasingly affordable and pragmatic tool for mapping fuels across localised and broad areas. Few studies have used ALS in boreal forest regions to describe structural attributes such as fuel load at a fine resolution (i.e. <100 m2 cell resolution). We used ALS to predict five forest attributes relevant to fire behaviour in black spruce (Picea mariana) stands in Alberta, Canada: canopy bulk density, canopy fuel load, stem density, canopy height and canopy base height. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (lasso) regression models indicated statistically significant relationships between ALS data and the forest metrics of interest (R2 ≥0.81 for all metrics except canopy base height which had a R2 value of 0.63). Performance of the regression models was acceptable and consistent with prior studies when applied to test datasets; however, regression models presented in this study mapped stand attributes at a much finer resolution (40 m2).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Wildland FireSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207