Stand validation of lidar forest inventory modeling for a managed southern pine forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated area-based approaches (ABAs) to light detection and ranging (lidar) predictions of plot- and stand-level forest attributes (tree count, height, basal area, volume, aboveground biomass, broadleaf/conifer, and diameter at breast height — “diameter”). ABA methods included post-stratification (PS), ordinary least squares (OLSs) regression, k nearest neighbors ( kNN), and random forest (RF). This study was conducted on the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, USA. Plot- and stand-level predictions were validated against fixed-radius 0.04 ha (0.1 acre) plots in 49 ≈2.0 ha (5 acre) stands. Our findings demonstrate that lidar can be incorporated operationally into forest inventory systems to provide stand-level inferences for a wide range of forest attributes. Volume predictions for specific diameter classes, however, often fared poorly (root mean squared error (RMSE) > 100%) for the methods we explored, especially for larger (less common) diameter trees. Stand-level results were consistently better than pixel-level results (10–200+ percentage points). kNN and RF performed similarly and better than OLS and PS, but RF was the most robust to model configurations, while kNN has practical advantages such as simultaneous predictions of many attributes.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".