Updating Canada’s National Forest Inventory with multiple imputations of missing contemporary data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada’s National Forest Inventory (NFI) is facing an issue of spatial imbalance in photo interpreted data from 400 ha photo-plots available for estimation of state and change. Multiple imputations (MI) of missing data is therefore considered as a means to mitigate a potential bias arising from spatial imbalance, and—to a lesser degree— improve the precision relative to what can be achieved with the subset of plots having current data. In this study we explored MI with data from three study sites located in the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, and Saskatchewan. Specifically, we looked at state at time T2and change between T1and T2in cover-type area proportions and in per unit area stem volume. At each location we found significant T1differences in these attributes between plots with and without T2data. A MI procedure with 20 replications of stochastic model-based imputations of missing data was therefore effective as a way to mitigate a bias that would arise if T2inference was based exclusively on plots with T2data. Possible differences between the T2and T1photointerpretation, paired with no efficient stratification of disturbed and undisturbed plots, largely eliminated expected gains in precision from the MI boosting of the effective T2sample size. Despite recognized limitations, we recommend MI as an effective tool to counteract an emerging spatial imbalance in the NFI.
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 | 0.022 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".