Prediction of diameter distributions and tree-lists in southwestern Oregon using LiDAR and stand-level auxiliary information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diameter distributions and tree-lists provide information about forest stocks disaggregated by size and species and are key for informing forest management. Diameter distributions and tree-lists are multivariate responses, which makes the evaluation of methods for their prediction reliant on the use of dissimilarity metrics to summarize differences between observations and predictions. We compared four strategies for selection of k nearest neighbors (k-NN) methods to predict diameter distributions and tree-lists using LiDAR and stand-level auxiliary data and analyzed the effect of the k-NN distance and number of neighbors in the performance of the predictions. Strategies differed by the dissimilarity metric used to search for optimal k-NN configurations and the presence or absence of post-stratification. We also analyzed how alternative k-NN configurations ranked when tree-lists were aggregated using different DBH classes and species groupings. For all dissimilarity metrics, k-NN configurations using random-forest distance and three or more neighbors provided the best results. Rankings of k-NN configurations based on different dissimilarity metrics were relatively insensitive to changes on the width of the DBH classes and the definition of the species groups. The selection of the k-NN methods was clearly dependent on the choice of the dissimilarity metric. Further research is needed to find suitable ways to define dissimilarity metrics that reflect how forest managers evaluate differences between predicted and observed tree-lists and diameter distributions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".