Analysis of spatial correlation in predictive models of forest variables that use LiDAR auxiliary information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accounting for spatial correlation of LiDAR model errors can improve the precision of model-based estimators. To estimate spatial correlation, sample designs that provide close observations are needed, but their implementation might be prohibitively expensive. To quantify the gains obtained by accounting for the spatial correlation of model errors, we examined (i) the spatial correlation patterns of residuals from LiDAR linear models developed to predict volume, total and stem biomass per hectare, quadratic mean diameter (QMD), basal area, mean and dominant height, and stand density and (ii) the impact of field plot size on the spatial correlation patterns in a standwise managed Mediterranean forest in central Spain. For all variables, the correlation range of model residuals consistently increased with plot radius and was always below 60 m except for stand density, where it reached 85 m. Except for QMD, correlation ranges of model residuals were between 1.06 and 8.16 times shorter than those observed for the raw variables. Based on the relatively short correlation ranges observed when the LiDAR metrics were used as predictors, the assumption of independent errors in many forest management inventories seems to be reasonable and appropriate in practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".