Sampling with probability proportional to prediction (3P sampling) using covariates derived from spherical images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a two-phase sampling approach with systematic selection of large samples of covariates followed by a sampling with probability proportional to prediction (3P sampling) process to subsample field measures of the parameters of interest can be an efficient design to sample larger forest areas. To assist in obtaining predictions for each sample plot consistently and rapidly, we propose using a 360° spherical camera. In this study, three covariates derived from spherical images were evaluated: (i) basal area (P[BA]); (ii) sum of squared heights per hectare (P[SHT]); and (iii) stem fraction (P[SF]). These covariates were used to estimate volume. Sample simulations showed no biases in volume estimates for any of the three covariates. Overall, P[SF] had the lowest standard error percentages across different simulated sample sizes (10% for five subsamples to 2.5% for 50 subsamples), even though it had the lowest correlations with field volume (correlation = 0.30–0.31). This may be a result of the relatively consistent stand conditions within the study site. Based on our results, standard errors of 5% were obtainable with measurement fractions of about 25% of the number of image-based predictions when using P[SF] or P[BA] and 75% when using P[SHT].
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 | 0.020 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".