A Bi-Temporal Airborne Lidar Shrub-to-Tree Aboveground Biomass Model for the Taiga of Western Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monitoring aboveground biomass (AGB) is critical for carbon reporting and quantifying ecosystem change. AGB from field data can be scaled to the region using airborne lidar. However, lidar-based AGB products emphasize upland forests, which may not represent the conditions in rapidly changing peatland complexes in the southern Taiga of western Canada. In addition, to ensure that modeled AGB changes do not incorporate systematic error due to differences between older and newer lidar technologies, model transfer tests are required. The aim of this study was to develop one bi-temporal lidar-based AGB model applicable to (1) vegetation structures at varying vertical and horizontal continuity in this region and to (2) data collected with an earlier generation lidar system for which Canada-wide aerial coverage is available. Goodness-of-fit metrics show that AGB can be modeled with moderate (R2 = 48%–58% Taiga Shield, peatlands) to high accuracies (R2 = 83%–89% Taiga Plains, upland/permafrost plateau forests including ecotones) by using the point clouds average height and 90th height percentile within a weighted approach as function of modeled AGB and calibrating the earlier lidar data. These results are important for quantifying climate change effects on forest to peatland ecotones.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".