Patterns of covariance between airborne laser scanning metrics and Lorenz curve descriptors of tree size inequality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Lorenz curve, as a descriptor of tree size inequality within a stand, has been suggested as a reliable means for characterizing forest structure and distinguishing even from uneven-sized areas. The aim of this study was to achieve a thorough understanding on the relations between airborne laser scanning (ALS) metrics and indicators based on Lorenz curve ordering: Gini coefficient (GC) and Lorenz asymmetry (S). Exploratory multivariate analysis was carried out using correlation tests, partial least squares (PLS), and an information-theoretic approach for multimodel inference (MMI). Best subset linear model was selected for GC and S prediction, as variable transformations yielded no improvement in the relation of ALS with the given response. Relative variable importance based on the MMI model showed that GC is best predicted by ALS metrics expressing canopy coverage, return dispersion, and low–high percentile combinations. Although ALS metrics showed no correlation with S, they did so against its constituting components: the proportions of basal area () and stem density () stocked above the mean quadratic diameter. The study of PLS loading vectors illustrated how ALS metrics explain variance in opposing directions for each of these components, so that their effects cancel each other out in the overall S. Cross-validation showed that only marginal differences are nevertheless found between predicting S directly or as the sum and estimations. The differing relation of diverse ALS metrics was therefore observed for and . The conclusions obtained by this research may assist in selecting relevant Lorenz curve descriptors for forest structure characterization, as well as in variable reduction strategies for their wall-to-wall prediction by means of ALS metrics.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".