MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116763923 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2014-0152

Integrating remote sensing and past inventory data under the new annual design of the Swiss National Forest Inventory using three-phase design-based regression estimation

2014· article· en· W2116763923 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alexander Massey, Daniel Mandallaz, Adrian Lanz

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorStatisticsForest inventoryVariance (accounting)Sample (material)Sampling (signal processing)Simple random sampleSampling designSample size determinationMathematicsRegressionStandard errorEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceEconometricsGeographyForest managementForestryPopulationTelecommunicationsDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2009, the Swiss National Forest Inventory (NFI) turned from a periodic into an annual measurement design in which only one-ninth of the overall sample of permanent plots is measured every year. The reduction in sample size due to the implementation of the annual design results in an unacceptably large increase in variance when using the standard simple random sampling estimator. Thus, a flexible estimation procedure using two- and three-phase regression estimators is presented with a special focus on utilizing updating techniques to account for disturbances and growth and is applied to the second and third Swiss NFIs. The first phase consists of a dense sample of systematically distributed plots on a 500 m × 500 m grid for which auxiliary variables are obtained through the interpretation of aerial photographs. The second phase is an eightfold looser subgrid with terrestrial plot data collected from the past inventory, and the third and final phase consists of the three most recent annual subgrids with the current state of the target variable (stem volume). The proposed three-phase estimators reduce the increase in variance from 294% to 145% compared with the estimator based on the full periodic sample while remaining unbiased.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.698
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.138
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations35
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207