National forest inventories in the service of small area estimation of stem volume
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study introduces five facets that can improve inference in small area estimation (SAE) problems: (1) model groups, (2) test of area effects, (3) conditional EBLUPs, (4) model selection, and (5) model averaging. Two contrasting case studies with data from the Swiss and Norwegian national forest inventories demonstrate the five facets. The target variable of interest was mean stem volume per hectare on forested land in 108 Swiss forest districts (FD) and in 14 Norwegian municipalities (KOM) in the County of Vestfold. Auxiliary variables from airborne laser scanning (Switzerland) and photogrammetric point clouds (Vestfold) with full coverage and a resolution of 25 m × 25 m (Switzerland) and 16 m × 16 m (Vestfold) were available. Only the data metric mean canopy height was statistically significant. Ten linear fixed-effects models and three mixed linear models were assessed. Area effects were statistically significant in the Swiss case but not in Vestfold case. A model selection based on AIC favored separate linear regression models for each FD and a single common regression model in Vestfold. Model averaging increased, on average, an estimated variance by 15%. Reported estimates of uncertainty were consistently larger than corresponding unconditional EBLUPs.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".