CNN-based transfer learning for forest aboveground biomass prediction from ALS point cloud tomography
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents a new approach for predicting forest aboveground biomass (AGB) from airborne laser scanning (ALS) data: AGB is predicted from sequences of images depicting vertical cross-sections through the ALS point clouds. A 3D version of the VGG16 convolutional neural network (CNN) with initial weights transferred from pre-training on the ImageNet dataset was used. The approach was tested on datasets from Canada, Poland, and the Czech Republic. To analyse the effect of training sample size on model performance, different-sized samples ranging from 10 to 375 ground plots were used. The CNNs were compared with random forest models (RFs) trained on point cloud metrics. At the maximum number of training samples, the difference in RMSE between observed and predicted AGB of CNNs and RFs ranged from −2 t/ha to 5 t/ha, and the difference in squared Pearson correlation coefficient ranged from −0.05 to 0.06. Additional pre-training on synthetic data derived from virtual laser scanning of simulated forest stands could only improve the prediction performance of the CNNs when only a few real training samples (10–40) were available. While 3D CNNs trained on cross-section images derived from real data showed promising results, RFs remain a competitive alternative.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it