INDIVIDUAL TREE IDENTIFICATION IN AIRBORNE LASER DATA BY INVERSE SEARCH WINDOW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The local maximum filtering performance is highly dependent of the window size definition. This paper proposes that the window size should be determined by an inverse relationship to the canopy height model, and test the hypothesis that a windowsize inversely proportional will have better performance than the window proportional to the canopy height model. The study area is located in the southeastern region of the State of British Columbia, Canada. The natural vegetation is the boreal type and is characterized by the dominance of two species Picea engelmannii Parry ex. Engelmann (Engelmann spruce) and Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt. (sub-alpine fir). The relief is mountainous with altitudes ranging from 650-2400 meters. 62 plots with 256 square meters were measured in the field. The airborne LiDAR had discrete returns, 2 points per square meter density and small-footprint. The performance of the search windows was evaluated based on success percentage, absolute average error and also compared to the observed values of the field plots. The local maximum filter underestimated the number of trees per hectare for both window sizing methods. The use of the inverse proportional window size has resulted in superior results, particularly for regions with highest density of trees.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".