Inoptimality losses in forest management decisions caused by errors in an inventory based on airborne laser scanning and aerial photographs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Errors in inventory data may lead to inoptimal decisions that ultimately result in financial losses for forest owners. We estimated the expected monetary losses resulting from data errors that are similar to errors in laser-based forest inventory. The mean loss was estimated for 67 stands by simulating 100 realizations of inventory data for each stand with errors that mimic those in airborne laser scanning (ALS) based inventory. These realizations were used as input data in stand management optimization, which maximized the present value of all future net incomes (NPV). The inoptimality loss was calculated as the difference between the NPV of the optimal solution and the true NPV of the solution obtained with erroneous input data. The results showed that the mean loss exceeded €300·ha–1 (US$425·ha–1) in 84% of the stands. On average, the losses increased with decreasing stand age and mean diameter. Furthermore, increasing errors in the basal area weighted mean diameter and basal area of spruce were found to significantly increase the loss. It has been discussed that improvements in the accuracy of ALS-based inventory could be financially justified.
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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".