MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045180599 · doi:10.1139/x03-036

<i>n</i>-Tree distance sampling for per-tree estimates with application to unequal-sized cluster sampling of increment core data

2003· article· en· W2045180599 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thomas B. Lynch, Robert F. Wittwer

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsSampling (signal processing)StatisticsEstimatorTree (set theory)Cluster samplingCombinatoricsHectareGeographyComputer sciencePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Samples from the n trees nearest to a point or plot center are sometimes used to estimate per-tree values such as age or growth from increment cores. Clutter et al. (J.L. Clutter, J.C. Fortson, L.V. Pienaar, G.H. Brister, and R.L. Bailey. 1983. Timber management: a quantitative approach. John Wiley & Sons, New York) indicated that this procedure can be biased because it is more likely to sample large trees occupying large amounts of space. This sampling procedure falls into the category of n-tree distance sampling in which the nth closest tree to a point defines a plot radius that can be used to estimate number of trees or amount of volume per hectare. When a ratio of n-tree per-hectare estimates is used to estimate per-tree attributes, the resulting estimator is a weighted average in which weights are the inverse of the n-tree sampling plot size. Since this ratio estimator essentially weights observations inversely with plot size, it is not subject to the objections of Clutter et al. (1983). This estimator is used to estimate age by diameter at breast height class for eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides Bartr. ex Marsh.) on the Cimarron National Grassland.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.074
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.074
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207