A comparison of small-area estimation techniques to estimate selected stand attributes using LiDAR-derived auxiliary variables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the challenges often faced in forestry is the estimation of forest attributes for smaller areas of interest within a larger population. Small-area estimation (SAE) is a set of techniques well suited to estimation of forest attributes for small areas in which the existing sample size is small and auxiliary information is available. Selected SAE methods were compared for estimating a variety of forest attributes for small areas using ground data and light detection and ranging (LiDAR) derived auxiliary information. The small areas of interest consisted of delineated stands within a larger forested population. Four different estimation methods were compared for predicting forest density (number of trees/ha), quadratic mean diameter (cm), basal area (m 2 /ha), top height (m), and cubic stem volume (m 3 /ha). The precision and bias of the estimation methods (synthetic prediction (SP), multiple linear regression based composite prediction (CP), empirical best linear unbiased prediction (EBLUP) via Fay–Herriot models, and most similar neighbor (MSN) imputation) are documented. For the indirect estimators, MSN was superior to SP in terms of both precision and bias for all attributes. For the composite estimators, EBLUP was generally superior to direct estimation (DE) and CP, with the exception of forest density.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".