Accuracy and efficiency evaluation of point-centered quarter method variations for vegetation sampling in an araucaria forest
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it