Mapping wildland fuels and forest structure for land management: a comparison of nearest neighbor imputation and other methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Land managers need consistent information about the geographic distribution of wildland fuels and forest structure over large areas to evaluate fire risk and plan fuel treatments. We compared spatial predictions for 12 fuel and forest structure variables across three regions in the western United States using gradient nearest neighbor (GNN) imputation, linear models (LMs), classification and regression trees (CART), and geostatistical methods (kriging and universal kriging (UK)). Local-scale map accuracy varied considerably across sites, variables, and methods. GNN performed best for forest structure variables in Oregon, but LMs and UK were better for canopy variables and for forest structure variables in Washington and California. Kriging performed poorly throughout, and kriging did not improve prediction accuracy when added to LMs as UK. GNN outperformed CART in predicting vegetation classes and fuel models, complex variables defined by multiple attributes. Regional distributions of vegetation classes and fuel models were accurately represented by GNN and very poorly by CART and LMs. Despite their often limited accuracy at the local scale, GNN maps are useful when information on a wide range of forest attributes is needed for analysis and forest management at intermediate, i.e., landscape to ecoregional, scales.
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 | 0.025 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".