Using field-based, photogrammetric point cloud, orthophoto and LiDAR-derived metrics to assess forest structure–snowpack relationships in the Great Lakes–St. Lawrence Forest region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy of field-based, photogrammetric point cloud, orthophoto and light detection and ranging datasets to describe forest structure and resolve forest–snowpack relationships in a mixed forest region was evaluated over two years at the point and transect scales. Hemispheric photo-derived canopy metrics correlated well with remotely sensed metrics, but tree bole metrics were not effectively derived from remotely sensed data. Significant differences in melt rate and snow-free date were found across forest type at the transect scale. Field and remotely sensed estimates of canopy cover were highly correlated with melt rate and snow-free date at the point scale, which aligns with previous literature and understanding of snowmelt processes. However, significant correlations were only present during the 2016 study year, which was attributed to canopy-controlled solar radiation-driven melt in 2016 versus more spatially uniform turbulent flux-driven melt in 2017. Peak snow water equivalent metrics were not correlated well with canopy or tree height metrics, contrary to previous research. This was likely due to mid-winter melt events throughout both study years, where a mix of accumulation and melt processes confounded forest–snowpack relationships. This study demonstrates that widely available remotely sensed data with a broad coverage can be used to: (i) describe forest–snowpack relationships in mixed hardwood, coniferous forests and (ii) elucidate the variability of forest–snowpack relationships under different climate conditions in this environment.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".