MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2798144068 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2017-0414

Assessment of sampling strategies utilizing auxiliary information in large-scale forest inventory

2018· article· en· W2798144068 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Minna Räty, Juha Heikkinen, Annika Kangas

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSampling designForest inventoryStatisticsScale (ratio)Sampling (signal processing)Matching (statistics)Computer scienceSample (material)Environmental scienceStratified samplingPopulationStratification (seeds)GeographyMathematicsForestryForest managementCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The National Forest Inventory of Finland (NFI) produces national- and regional-level statistics for sustainability assessment and strategical-level decision making. So far, the regional-level statistics are based on a systematic sampling design with geographical stratification. Auxiliary information such as remote sensing is not used for design or estimation at the regional level, but it is used at the small-area level, i.e., for municipality-level results. To improve the cost efficiency of the NFI, possibilities for using auxiliary data in both the design and estimation are of interest. We assessed the improvements obtainable by using an interpreted satellite image — the multisource NFI result from a previous NFI — as auxiliary information in the design phase. The results show that even though the multisource NFI map is not very accurate, significant improvements in efficiency can be obtained by using either the local pivotal method (LPM) or stratification. LPM improves efficiency by matching the sample distribution to population distribution. These results encourage us to further investigate (i) what would be the improvement with more accurate auxiliary information, for example, laser scanning data, and (ii) how LPM fits in a real-life situation where part of the plots are permanent and it would be used to select only the temporary plots.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.474
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207