Model-based inference for biomass estimation in a LiDAR sample survey in Hedmark County, NorwayThis article is one of a selection of papers from Extending Forest Inventory and Monitoring over Space and Time.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In forest inventories, regression models are often applied to predict quantities such as biomass at the level of sampling units. In this paper, we propose a model-based inference framework for combining sampling and model errors in the variance estimation. It was applied to airborne laser (LiDAR) data sets from Hedmark County, Norway, where the model error proportion of the total variance was found to be large for both scanning (airborne laser scanning) and profiling LiDAR when biomass was estimated. With profiling LiDAR, the model error variance component for the entire county was as large as 71% whereas for airborne laser scanning, it was 43% of the total variance. Partly, this reflects the better accuracy of the pixel-based regression models estimated from scanner data as compared with the models estimated from profiler data. The framework proposed in our study can be applied in all types of sample surveys where model-based predictions are made at the level of individual sampling units. Especially, it should be useful in cases where model-assisted inference cannot be applied due to the lack of a probability sample from the target population or due to problems of correctly matching observations of auxiliary and target variables.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".