<scp>HemiPy</scp>: A Python module for automated estimation of forest biophysical variables and uncertainties from digital hemispherical photographs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Digital hemispherical photography (DHP) is widely used to derive forest biophysical variables including leaf, plant, and green area index (LAI, PAI and GAI), the fraction of intercepted photosynthetically active radiation (FIPAR), and the fraction of vegetation cover (FCOVER). However, the majority of software packages for processing DHP data are based on a graphical user interface, making programmatic analysis difficult. Meanwhile, few natively support analysis of RAW image formats, while none incorporate the propagation or provision of uncertainties. To address these limitations, we present HemiPy, an open‐source Python module for deriving forest biophysical variables and uncertainties from DHP images in an automated manner. We assess HemiPy using simulated hemispherical images, in addition to multiannual time‐series and litterfall data from several forested National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) sites, as well as comparison against the CAN‐EYE software package. Multiannual time‐series of PAI, FIPAR and FCOVER demonstrate HemiPy's outputs realistically represent expected temporal patterns. Comparison against litterfall data reveals reasonable accuracies are achievable, with RMSE values close to the error of ~1 unit typically attributed to optical LAI measurement approaches. HemiPy's PAI, FIPAR and FCOVER outputs demonstrate good agreement with CAN‐EYE. Consistent with previous studies, when compared to simulated hemispherical images, better agreement is observed for PAI derived using gap fraction near the hinge angle of 57.5° only, as opposed to values derived using gap fraction over a wider range of zenith angles. HemiPy should prove a useful tool for processing DHP images, and its open‐source nature means that it can be adopted, extended and further refined by the user community.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.018 |
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".