Use of Mobile Laser Scanning (MLS) to Monitor Vegetation Recovery on Linear Disturbances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seismic lines are narrow, linear corridors cleared through forests for oil and gas exploration. Their inconsistent recovery has led to Alberta’s forests being highly fragmented, resulting in the need for seismic line restoration programs and subsequent monitoring. Light detection and ranging (LiDAR) is becoming an increasingly popular technology for the fast and accurate measurement of forests. Mobile LiDAR scanners (MLS) are emerging as an alternative to traditional aerial LiDAR due to their increased point cloud density. To determine whether MLS could be effective for collecting vegetation data on seismic lines, we sampled 17 seismic lines using the Emesent Hovermap™ in leaf-on and leaf-off conditions. Processing the LiDAR data was conducted with GreenValley International’s LiDAR 360 software, and data derived from the point clouds were compared to physically measured field data. Overall, the tree detection algorithm was unsuccessful at accurately segmenting the point clouds. Complex vegetation environments on seismic lines, including small conifers with obscured stems or extremely dense and tall shrubs with overlapping canopies, posed a challenge for the software’s capacity to differentiate trees As a result, tree densities and diameters were overestimated, while tree heights were underestimated. Exploration of alternative algorithms and software is needed if measuring vegetation data on seismic lines with MLS is to be implemented.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".