Tree stem volume estimation from terrestrial LiDAR point cloud by unwrapping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimating the volume of standing trees is a fundamental concern in forestry and is typically accomplished using one or more measurements of stem diameter along with formulae that assume geometric primitives. In contrast, technologies such as terrestrial Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) can record very detailed spatial information on the actual surface of an object, such as a tree bole. We present a method using LiDAR that provides accurate volume estimates of tree stems, as well as 2D rasters that display details of stem surfaces, which we call the “unwrapping method.” This method combines the concepts of cylinder fitting, voxelization, and digital elevation models. The method is illustrated and tested using a sample of standing trees, whereby we are able to generate accurate volume estimates from the point cloud, as well as accurate visualization of the scanned stem sections. When compared to volume estimates derived from Huber's, Smalian's, and Newton's formulae, the differences are consistent with previous studies comparing formula-derived volume estimates and water-displacement-derived volume estimates, suggesting the unwrapping method has comparable accuracy to water displacement.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".