MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2107684578 · doi:10.1139/x03-288

Stratified space angle-count sampling for an estimation of stand volume

2004· article· en· W2107684578 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Masahiko Nakagawa

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSampling (signal processing)MathematicsVolume (thermodynamics)StratumBasal areaTree (set theory)StatisticsGeometrySpace (punctuation)Point (geometry)Sample (material)Mathematical analysisForestryGeologyGeographyPhysicsComputer scienceOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stratified space angle-count sampling is a newly proposed method for estimating stand volume. This new method includes the theory and all the premises of space point sampling, as well as the following: (i) all trees taper, (ii) the box-like sampling space imagined in space point sampling is divided into several strata with the same vertical distances, (iii) the diameter of expanded tree stems in each stratum is represented at the middle of the vertical distance in each stratum. Stand volume is calculated using the following equation: V (m3/ha)=kH/Z Σ[Formula: see text] λi, where V is volume (m3/ha), k is basal area factor (m2/ha), H is the maximum tree height in the stand, Z is the number of strata in the sampling space, N is the number of trees in the stand, and λi is an indicator variable that takes the value 1 or 0, depending on whether the tree stem is in the sample or not. Since this method does not require a measurement or an estimation of a critical height, it could be an easy method for estimating stand volume.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicForest ecology and management→French-language works237,207→