MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7115583623 · doi:10.3832/ifor4685-018

Improving tree diameter measurements above irregularities in Central African forests: a Close-Range Photogrammetric approach

2025· article· en· W7115583623 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueiForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgence Universitaire de la FrancophonieConservation Action Research Network
KeywordsEvergreenPhotogrammetryMean squared errorTree (set theory)Point cloudCorrelation coefficientMeasure (data warehouse)Coefficient of determination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate measurement of tree diameter in forests is essential for sustainable management of forest resources, ecological assessment, and scientific research. However, most trees in tropical forests have irregularities at the base of the trunk, making it challenging to measure the trunk diameter above them with a tape measure. To meet the increasing demand for data accuracy and reliability, approaches using three-dimensional (3D) point clouds offer a valuable new source of data for tree measurements. This study examines the accuracy of diameter measurements above irregularities using the Close-Range Photogrammetric approach, with diameter tape serving as the reference. A total of 212 trees measured in the north of the Republic of Congo were reconstructed in three dimensions (3D), including 128 trees in semi-deciduous forest and 84 trees in evergreen forest. Comparisons were made in terms of dependence (simple linear regression), correlation (Pearson, Kendall, and Spearman tests), agreement (Bland and Altman method), and difference (Mean Absolute Error - MAE, Root Mean Square Error - RMSE, bias - BIAS, and coefficient of variation - CV). In addition to a near perfect match, a strong association of diameter measurements and a good degree of agreement, the results indicated the presence of differences between diameter measurement approaches in semi-deciduous forest (MAE = 9.25 cm, RMSE = 16.95 cm, BIAS = 7.45 cm) and evergreen forest (MAE = 3.88 cm, RMSE = 8.47 cm, BIAS = 2.37 cm). These differences are minor in the evergreen forest. The magnitude of the differences found is mostly due to the size of the large-diameter classes. In addition, the coefficients of variation (CV) of diameter obtained from the Close-Range Photogrammetric approach were lower than those obtained from the classic conventional approach in both forests, indicating the higher accuracy of the former approach. Further studies could use larger data samples to provide more accurate estimates and verify the limits of these applications’ measurement capabilities.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueiForest - Biogeosciences and ForestrySame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207