Accuracy and efficiency evaluation of point-centered quarter method variations for vegetation sampling in an araucaria forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to verify Point-Centered Quarter Method (PCQM) accuracy and efficiency, using different numbers of individuals by per sampled area, in 28 quarter points in an Araucaria forest, southern Paraná, Brazil. Three variations of the PCQM were used for comparison associated to the number of sampled individual trees: standard PCQM (SD-PCQM), with four sampled individuals by point (one in each quarter), second measured (VAR1-PCQM), with eight sampled individuals by point (two in each quarter), and third measuring (VAR2-PCQM), with 16 sampled individuals by points (four in each quarter). Thirty-one species of trees were recorded by the SD-PCQM method, 48 by VAR1-PCQM and 60 by VAR2-PCQM. The level of exhaustiveness of the vegetation census and diversity index showed an increasing number of individuals considered by quadrant, indicating that VAR2-PCQM was the most accurate and efficient method when compared with VAR1-PCQM and SD-PCQM.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".