Forest inventory of small areas combining the calibration estimator and a spatial model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of satellite images is considered to compute improved weights for field plots when estimating totals of forest variables over a region by weighted sums of plot measurements. It is intuitively appealing, and necessary in growth projections for management planning, that the weight of each plot can be interpreted as the total area of similar forest in the region. This way we can get a sound description for the whole region so that the relations and distributions of all predicted forest variables resemble the true population. Area interpretation is possible if the weights are positive and the same for all target variables. A calibration estimator provides such weights. If we need estimates for small subregions (counties in this study), we should utilize plots outside the current subregion. A spatial variogram model is suggested for computing the variance of the proposed small-area calibration estimator. Kriging provides optimal weights under such model, but the area interpretation for weights would not be possible. Estimation of county results using data from the Finnish National Forest Inventory and Landsat TM satellite showed that (i) outside plots should be utilized from a constant area around the county, i.e., the inclusion range should decrease when the size of the county increases, (ii) the combined use of neighboring plots and satellite data may lead to a large reduction in the error variance for small counties. In its current form, the method does not produce predictions for individual pixels.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".