The effects of sample plot selection strategy and the number of sample plots on inoptimality losses in forest management planning based on airborne laser scanning data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In forest management planning, errors in predicted stand attributes might lead to suboptimal decisions that result in decreased net present value (NPV). Forest inventory data will have higher value if the amount of suboptimal decisions can be decreased. Therefore, the value of information can be measured through the decrease in inoptimality losses, which are the NPV differences between the optimal and suboptimal decisions. In this study, four alternative sample plot selection strategies with different numbers of sample plots were compared in terms of expected mean inoptimality losses. Stand-level mean inoptimality losses varied between €41.1·ha–1 and €80.7·ha−1, depending on the sample plot selection strategy and the number of sample plots used as training data in the k-nearest neighbors imputation method. Mean inoptimality losses decreased substantially when the number of sample plots increased from 25 to 100, and the decreasing trend continued until 500 sample plots. Total inoptimality losses can decrease by approximately €1 million in an inventory area of 100 000 ha when the number of sample plots is increased from 100 to 500. The measurement of more sample plots can be justified as long as the field measurement costs do not exceed the decrease in inoptimality losses.
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 | 0.034 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".