A general method for assessing the effects of uncertainty in individual-tree volume model predictions on large-area volume estimates with a subtropical forest illustration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest inventory estimates of tree volume for large areas are typically calculated by adding the model predictions of volumes for individual trees at the plot level, calculating the mean over plots, and expressing the result on a per unit area basis. The uncertainty in the model predictions is generally ignored, with the result that the precision of the large-area volume estimate is optimistic. The primary study objective was to assess the performance of a Monte Carlo based approach for estimating model prediction error that had been developed for boreal and temperate forest applications when used for a subtropical forest application. Monte Carlo simulation approaches were used because of the complexities associated with multiple sources of uncertainty, the nonlinear nature of the models, and heteroskedasticity. A related objective was to estimate the effects of model prediction uncertainty due to residual and parameter uncertainty on the large-area volume estimates for the Brazilian state of Santa Catarina. The primary conclusions were fourfold. First, the methodological approach worked well. Second, the effects of model residual and parameter uncertainty on large-area estimates of mean volume per unit area were negligible for the models and calibration datasets used for the study. Third, for the models currently in use in Santa Catarina, the effects of model residual and parameter uncertainty may be ignored when calculating large-area estimates of mean volume per unit area. Fourth, differences were negligible between estimates of the mean and standard error obtained using a single, nonspecific volume model and estimates obtained using both forest-type models and species-specific/species-group models.
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 | 0.016 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".