Effects of Viewing Geometry on Multispectral Lidar-Based Needle-Leaved Tree Species Identification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying tree species with remote sensing techniques, such as lidar, can improve forest management decision-making, but differences in scan angle may influence classification accuracy. The multispectral Titan lidar (Teledyne Optech Inc., Vaughan, ON, Canada) has three integrated lasers with different wavelengths (1550, 1064 and 532 nm), and with different scan angle planes (respectively tilted at 3.5°, 0° and 7° relative to a vertical plane). The use of multispectral lidar improved tree species separation, compared to mono-spectral lidar, by providing classification features that were computed from intensities in each channel, or from pairs of channels as ratios and normalized indices (NDVIs). The objective of the present study was to evaluate whether scan angle (up to 20°) influences 3D and intensity feature values and if this influence affected species classification accuracy. In Ontario (Canada), six needle-leaf species were sampled to train classifiers with different feature selection. We found the correlation between feature values and scan angle to be poor (mainly below |±0.2|), which led to changes in tree species classification accuracy of 1% (all features) and 8% (3D features only). Intensity normalization for range improved accuracies by 8% for classifications using only single-channel intensities, and 2–4% when features that were unaffected by normalization were added, such as 3D features or NDVIs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".