Bibliographic record
Abstract
Description Data for benchmarking tree species classification from proximally-sensed laser scanning data. Data split and usage The data is split into: Development data (dev): these includes 90% of the trees in the dataset and consists of individual tree point clouds (*.laz) named according to the treeID column available in the tree_metadata_dev.csv file, from which tree_species labels are available. These data are meant to be used for model development and can thus be further split into training and validation datasets. Test data (test): these are 10% of the trees (balanced sample) and include individual tree point clouds (*.laz) but, for benchmarking purposes, the species labels are witheld for benchmarking purposes. Thus to make use of the test data the users should predict species on the test trees, and output a table (.csv file) with a row per predicted tree and two columns (treeID and predicted_species). This table can then be used to create a new submission in the FOR-species20K Codabench benchmarking platform and obtain the evaluation metrics corresponding to the test data. Cite Any scientific publication using the data should cite the following paper: Puliti, S., Lines, E., Müllerová, J., Frey, J., Schindler, Z., Straker, A., Allen, M.J., Winiwarter, L., Rehush, N., Hristova, H., Murray, B., Calders, K., Terryn, L., Coops, N., Höfle, B., Krůček, M., Krokm, G., Král, K., Luck, L., Levick, S.R., Missarov, A., Mokroš, M., Owen, H., Stereńczak, K., Pitkänen, T.P., Puletti, N., Saarinen, N., Hopkinson, C., Torresan, C., Tomelleri, E., Weiser, H., Junttila, S., and Astrup, R. (2025) Benchmarking tree species classification from proximally-sensed laser scanning data: introducing the FOR-species20K dataset. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 00,1–18. Available here
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.083 |
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".