Effects of lidar pulse density and sample size on a model-assisted approach to estimate forest inventory variables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using lidar in an area-based model-assisted approach to forest inventory has the potential to increase estimation precision for some forest inventory variables. This study documents the bias and precision of a model-assisted (regression estimation) approach to forest inventory with lidar-derived auxiliary variables relative to lidar pulse density and the number of sample plots. For managed forests on the Lewis portion of the Lewis-McChord Joint Base (35025 ha, 23290 forested) in western Washington state, we evaluated a regression estimator for combinations of pulse density (.05–3 pulses/m2) and sample size (15–105 plots) to estimate five forest yield variables: basal area, volume, biomass, number of stems, and Lorey's height. The results indicate that there is almost no loss in precision in using as few as .05 pulses/m2 relative to 3 pulses/m2. We demonstrate that estimation precision declined quickly for reduced sample sizes (as expected from sampling theory); but of more importance we demonstrate that sample size has a dramatic effect on the validity of inferences. Our investigations indicate that for our test dataset that central limit theorem based confidence intervals were too small on average for sample sizes smaller than 55. The results from this study can aid in identifying design components for forest inventory with lidar which satisfy users’ objectives.
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 | 0.068 | 0.255 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".