Tree Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) Estimation Using an iPad Pro LiDAR Scanner: A Case Study in Boreal Forests, Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is a follow-up to a previous study that was conducted in a research forest and identified the optimal method for Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) estimation as a circular scanning and fitting ellipses to 4cm stem cross-sections at breast height. The aim of this study was to determine whether the identified method is applicable to natural boreal forests as well. The iPad Pro LiDAR scanner was used to acquire point clouds for 15 sites representing a range of natural boreal forest conditions in Ontario, Canada, and estimate DBH. The secondary objective was to determine if tested stand (Species composition, age, density, understory) or tree (Species, DBH) factors affected the accuracy of estimated DBH. Overall, estimated DBH values were within 1cm of actual DBH values for 78 of 133 measured trees (59%). An RMSE of 1.5cm (8.6%) was achieved. Stand age had a large effect (>0.15) on the accuracy of estimated DBH values, while density, understory, and DBH had moderate effects (0.05-0.14). No trend was identified between accuracy and stand age. Accuracy improved as understory density decreased and as tree DBH increased. Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) and positional accuracy errors with the iPad Pro scanner limit the feasibility of using this device for forest inventories.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".