Kriging prediction of stand-level forest information using mobile laser scanning data adjusted for nondetection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents an approach for predicting stand-level forest attributes utilizing mobile laser scanning data collected as a nonprobability sample. Firstly, recordings of stem density were made at point locations every 10th metre along a subjectively chosen mobile laser scanning track in a forest stand. Secondly, kriging was applied to predict stem density values for the centre point of all grid cells in a 5 m × 5 m lattice across the stand. Thirdly, due to nondetectability issues, a correction term was computed based on distance sampling theory. Lastly, the mean stem density at stand level was predicted as the mean of the point-level predictions multiplied with the correction factor, and the corresponding variance was estimated. Many factors contribute to the uncertainty of the stand-level prediction; in the variance estimator, we accounted for the uncertainties due to kriging prediction and due to estimating a detectability model from the laser scanning data. The results from our new approach were found to correspond fairly well to estimates obtained using field measurements from an independent set of 54 circular sample plots. The predicted number of stems in the stand based on the proposed methodology was 1366 with a 12.9% relative standard error. The corresponding estimate based on the field plots was 1677 with a 7.5% relative standard error.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".