Effects of plot size, stand density, and scan density on the relationship between airborne laser scanning metrics and the Gini coefficient of tree size inequality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimation of the Gini coefficient (GC) of tree sizes using airborne laser scanning (ALS) can provide maps of forest structure across the landscape, which can support sustainable forest management. A challenge arises in determining the optimal spatial resolution that maximizes the stability and precision of GC estimates, which in turn depends on stand density or ALS scan density. By subsampling different plot sizes within large field plots, we evaluated the optimal spatial resolution by observing changes in GC estimation and in its correlation with ALS metrics. We found that plot size had greater effects than either stand density or ALS scan density on the relationship between GC and ALS metrics. Uncertainty in GC estimates fell as plot size increased. Correlation with ALS metrics showed convex curves with maxima at 250–450 m 2 , which thus was considered the optimal plot size and, consequently, the optimal spatial resolution. By thinning the density of the ALS point cloud, we deduced that at least 3 points·m −2 were needed for reliable GC estimates. Many nationwide ALS scan densities are sparser than this, so may be unreliable for GC estimation. Ours is a simple approach for evaluating the optimal spatial resolution in remote sensing estimation of any forest attribute.
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 | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".