Analysing the uncertainty of estimating forest carbon stocks in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Earth surface systems are controlled by a combination of global and local factors, which cannot be understood without accounting for both the local and global components. The system dynamics cannot be recovered from the global or local controls alone. Ground forest inventory is able to accurately estimate forest carbon stocks in sample plots, but these sample plots are too sparse to support the spatial simulation of carbon stocks with required accuracy. Satellite observation is an important source of global information for the simulation of carbon stocks. Satellite remote sensing can supply spatially continuous information about the surface of forest carbon stocks, which is impossible from ground-based investigations, but their description has considerable uncertainty. In this paper, we validated the Kriging method for spatial interpolation of ground sample plots and a satellite-observation-based approach as well as an approach for fusing the ground sample plots with satellite observations. The validation results indicated that the data fusion approach reduced the uncertainty of estimating carbon stocks. The data fusion had the lowest uncertainty by using an existing method for high-accuracy surface modelling to fuse the ground sample plots with the satellite observations (HASM-S). The estimates produced with HASM-S were 26.1 and 28.4 % more accurate than the satellite-based approach and spatial interpolation of the sample plots respectively. Forest carbon stocks of 7.08 Pg were estimated for China during the period from 2004 to 2008, an increase of 2.24 Pg from 1984 to 2008, using the preferred HASM-S method.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".