Designing plots for precise estimation of forest attributes in landscapes and forests of varying heterogeneity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Models of relationships among forest inventory sampling efficiency and cluster plot configuration variables inform decisions by inventory planners. However, relationships vary under different spatial heterogeneity scenarios. To improve understanding of how spatial patterns of forests affect these relationships, we implemented a factorial experiment by simulating forest pattern at both the landscape and stand scales. We sampled these simulated forests with a variety of cluster plot configurations, calculated coefficient of variation (CV) of trees per hectare for each replicate, and tested the relationships among CV and the heterogeneity and cluster plot configuration factors within a linear mixed model framework. Both landscape- and stand-scale pattern aggregation had a significant relationship with CV. Changing cluster plot configuration factors did little to change the overall CV when using larger subplots but had some important effects when using smaller subplots. These impacts were stronger in the more uniform landscapes. Results were opposite for stand-scale heterogeneity; changing plot configuration in areas with aggregated patterns had a stronger impact than it did in areas with more uniform patterns. Results of this study reveal the importance of accounting for spatial pattern at multiple scales when making cluster configuration choices if the goal is statistical efficiency.
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 | 0.013 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 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".