A new method to estimate clumping index integrating gap fraction averaging with the analysis of gap size distribution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimates of clumping index (Ω) are required to improve the indirect estimation of leaf area index (L) from optical field-based instruments such as digital hemispherical photography (DHP). A widely used method allows estimation of Ω from DHP using simple gap fraction averaging formulas (LX). This method is simple and effective but has the disadvantage of being sensitive to the spatial scale (i.e., the azimuth segment size in DHP) used for averaging and canopy density. In this study, we propose a new method to estimate Ω (LXG) based on ordered weighted gap fraction averaging (OWA) formulas, which addresses the disadvantages of LX and also accounts for gap size distribution. The new method was tested in 11 broadleaved forest stands in Italy; Ω estimated from LXG was compared with other commonly used clumping correction methods (LX, CC, and CLX). Results showed that LXG yielded more accurate Ω estimates, which were also more correlated with the values obtained from the gap size distribution methods (CC and CLX) than Ω obtained from LX. Leaf area index estimates, adjusted by LXG, are only 5%–6% lower than direct measurements obtained from litter traps, while other commonly used clumping correction methods yielded more underestimation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".