Synthesizing Local Capacities, Multi-Source Remote Sensing and Meta-Learning to Optimize Forest Carbon Assessment in Data-Poor Regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the climate emergency escalates, the role of forests in carbon sequestration is paramount. This paper proposes a framework that integrates local capacities, multi-source remote sensing data, and meta-learning to enhance forest carbon assessment methodologies in data-scarce regions. By integrating multi-source optical and radar remote sensing data alongside community forest inventories, we applied a meta-modelling approach using stacked generalization ensemble to estimate forest above-ground carbon (AGC). We also conducted a Kruskal–Wallis test to determine significant differences in AGC among different tree species. The Kruskal–Wallis test (p = 1.37 × 10−13) and Dunn post-hoc analysis revealed significant differences in carbon stock potential among tree species, with Afzelia quanzensis (x~ = 12 kg/ha, P-holm-adj. = 0.05) and the locally known species M’buta (x~ = 6 kg/ha, P-holm-adj. = 5.45 × 10−9) exhibiting a significantly higher median AGC. Our results further showed that combining optical and radar remote sensing data substantially improved prediction accuracy compared to single-source remote sensing data. To improve forest carbon assessment, we employed stacked generalization, combining multiple machine learning algorithms to leverage their complementary strengths and address individual limitations. This ensemble approach yielded more robust estimates than conventional methods. Notably, a stacking ensemble of support vector machines and random forest achieved the highest accuracy (R2 = 0.84, RMSE = 1.36), followed by an ensemble of all base learners (R2 = 0.83, RMSE = 1.39). Additionally, our results demonstrate that factors such as the diversity of base learners and the sensitivity of meta-leaners to optimization can influence stacking performance.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".