Edge-correction needs in estimating indices of spatial forest structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indices quantifying spatial forest structure are frequently used to monitor spatial aspects of tree attributes including biodiversity in research plots of limited size. The treatment of edge trees, which are close to the plot boundaries, can affect the estimation of such indices that include neighbour effects, since some of their neighbours are likely to fall outside the plot. This paper investigates whether and under what circumstances edge-correction methods are necessary and evaluates the performance of six different approaches: no edge correction, translation, reflection, buffer zone, and two new nearest-neighbour methods. The performance of edge-correction methods depends strongly on the algorithmic structure of the indices and the spatial pattern of tree positions involved. Some edge-correction methods introduce more error than ignoring edge bias altogether. For indices accounting for the diversity of tree positions and especially for those computing angles, translation or buffer zone methods reduce the estimation error regardless of the sample size. The use of the reflection method is associated with large bias values. One of the new nearest-neighbour edge-correction methods proves to be capable of reducing the bias considerably. The results confirm the need for sufficiently large monitoring plots to avoid bias from edge effects. Where this is impossible, neighbours beyond the plot boundary need to be included in the survey, thus providing unbiased estimates but at the cost of extra measurements. Sensitivity analysis is required for newly introduced indices prior to their first application.
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 | 0.015 | 0.125 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".