Modelling Canopy Height of Forest-Savannah Mosaics in Togo Using ICESat-2 and GEDI Spaceborne LiDAR and Multisource Satellite Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantifying forest carbon storage to better manage climate change and its effects requires accurate estimation of forest structural parameters such as canopy height. Variables from remote sensing data and machine-learning models are tools that are being increasingly used for this purpose. This study modelled canopy height of forest-savannah mosaics in the Sudano-Guinean zone of Togo. Relative heights were extracted from GEDI and ICESat-2 products, which were combined with optical, radar and topographic variables for canopy height modelling. We tested four methods: Random Forest (RF); Support Vector Machine (SVM); Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost); and Deep Neural Network (DNN). The RF algorithm obtained the best predictions using 98% relative height (RH98). The best performing result was obtained from variables extracted from GEDI data (r = 0.84; RMSE = 4.15 m; MAE = 2.36 m), compared to ICESat-2 (r = 0.65; RMSE = 5.10 m; MAE = 3.80 m). Models that were developed during the study, from the combination of multisource and multisensor data, can be applied over large areas in forest-savannah mosaics, thereby contributing to better monitoring of forest dynamics according to the objectives and requirements of REDD+.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".