Assessing the Effects of Sample Size on Parametrizing a Taper Curve Equation and the Resultant Stem-Volume Estimates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large and comprehensive datasets, traditionally based on destructive stem analysis or other labor-intensive approaches, are commonly considered as a necessity in developing stem-volume equations. The aim here was to investigate how a decreasing number of sample trees affects parametrizing an existing taper curve equation and resultant stem-volume estimates. Furthermore, the potential of terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) in producing taper curves was examined. A TLS-based taper curve was derived for 246 Scots pines (Pinus sylvestris L.) from southern Finland to parametrize an existing taper curve equation. To assess sensitivity of the parametrization regarding sample size, the number of Scots pines included in the parametrization varied between full census and 1 Scots pine at a time. Root mean square error of stem-volume estimates remained ≤20.9% and the mean absolute difference was relatively constant (≤9.0%) between stem-volume estimates when the sample size included ≥46 Scots pines. Thus, it can be concluded that, with a rather small sample size, a taper curve equation can be re-parametrized for local conditions using point clouds from TLS to produce consistent stem-volume estimates.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".