Comparison of the <i>k</i>-nearest neighbor technique with geographical calibration for estimating forest growing stock volumeThis article is one of a selection of papers from Extending Forest Inventory and Monitoring over Space and Time.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
National Forest Inventories (NFIs) have been used in many countries to assess forest resources at the national level. To facilitate the estimation of forest growing stock volume at more regional scales, the k-nearest neighbor (k-NN) technique was applied in this research to obtain estimates for unmeasured areas by using NFI field data and optical satellite data. The NFI field data were assigned to data sets of three different sample sizes to evaluate the effect of sample size on the accuracy of k-NN estimates. In small-area estimation, calibration techniques, in which samples surveyed outside a county of interest are employed to produce estimates for the county, are often adopted due to the lack of sample observations for the county of interest. Thus, the k-NN estimates, forest growing stock volume and areal proportions by forest types, were compared with estimates obtained from field data with and without calibration. The results indicated that the accuracy of k-NN estimates could be improved as sample size increased. Also, the k-NN technique provided acceptable estimates for small-area estimation. Although there was no significant difference with the calibration approach (p > 0.18), k-NN has potential for small-area estimation and is useful to generate thematic maps of forest attributes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".