Modeling Merchantable Wood Volume Using Airborne LiDAR Metrics and Historical Forest Inventory Plots at a Provincial Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
So far, large-scale projects aiming to map forest attributes using aerial LiDAR data have been developed using ground sample plots acquired synchronously with LiDAR. No large projects have been developed using aerial LiDAR acquired independent of ground sample plot datasets. The goal of this study was to develop and validate large-scale parametric merchantable wood volume estimation models using existing historical ground sample plots. The models can be applied to large LiDAR datasets to map merchantable wood volume as a 10 × 10 m raster. The study demonstrated that a relative density index (RDI) based on a self-thinning equation and dominant height were suitable variables that can be calculated both for ground sample plots and LiDAR datasets. The resulting volume raster showed sound accuracy rates when compared to validation zones: R², 82.25%; RMSE, 13.7 m3/ha; and bias, −4.09 m3/ha. The results show that ground sample plot datasets acquired synchronously with LiDAR can be used to calculate the RDI and dominant height. These variables can consequently be used to map forest attributes over a large area with a high level of accuracy, thus not requiring the implementation of new costly sample plots.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".