Incorporating spatial and operational constraints in the sampling designs for forest inventories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Besides the evaluation of the volume of standing trees, goals of forest inventories include collecting geophysical information and monitoring fragile ecosystems. In the province of Quebec, Canada, their implementation faces challenging methodological problems. The survey area covers a large territory that is hardly accessible and has a diverse forest. The main operational goals are to spread the sampled plots throughout the survey area and to capture, in the sample, the forest heterogeneity while keeping the cost at a reasonable level. In many inventories, a two‐dimensional systematic sampling design is applied, and the rich auxiliary information is only used at the estimation stage. We show how to use modern and advanced sampling techniques to improve the planning of forest inventories and meet complex operational goals. For the Quebec forest inventory, we build a two‐stage sampling design that has clusters of plots to optimize field work and predetermined sample sizes for forest types. Constraints of spreading the sample in the whole territory and of balancing according to auxiliary variables are also implemented. To meet these requirements, we use unequal inclusion probabilities, balanced sampling, highly stratified balanced sampling, and sample spreading. The impact of these novel techniques on the implementation of requirements and on the precision of survey estimates is investigated using Quebec inventory data. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".