Estimation of standing wood volume in forest compartments by exploiting airborne laser scanning information: model-based, design-based, and hybrid perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest compartments are usually delineated according to artificial or natural boundaries and usually include portions of different strata. While volume estimation of each stratum can be performed from field plots located within each stratum, volume estimation in portions of the stratum may be problematic owing to the small number (or even the absence) of plots falling in those portions. If upper canopy heights from airborne laser scanning are available at the pixel level for the whole survey area, these data are used as auxiliary information. A ratio model presuming a proportional relationship between transformed heights (e.g., power of heights) and volumes at the pixel level is adopted to guide estimation. From this model, the volume within any portion of the survey area is estimated as the proportionality factor estimate multiplied by the total of transformed heights in that portion. This estimator is considered from the model-based, design-based, and hybrid perspectives. Variances and their estimators are derived under the three approaches together with the corresponding confidence intervals. The volume estimator and the variance estimators are checked from the design-based point of view by a simulation study performed on a real forest in northwestern Italy. An application to a public forest estate in the same zone is performed.
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 | 0.002 | 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 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".