Improving Plot-Level Model of Forest Biomass: A Combined Approach Using Machine Learning with Spatial Statistics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimating the aboveground biomass (AGB) at the plot level plays a major role in connecting accurate single-tree AGB measurements to relatively difficult regional AGB estimates. However, AGB estimates at the plot level suffer from many uncertainties. The goal of this study is to determine whether combining machine learning with spatial statistics reduces the uncertainty of plot-level AGB estimates. To illustrate this issue, this study evaluates and compares the performance of different models for estimating plot-level forest AGB. These models include three different machine learning models [support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), and a radial basis function artificial neural network (RBF-ANN)], one spatial statistic model (P-BSHADE), and three combinations thereof (SVM & P-BSHADE, RF & P-BSHADE, and RBF-ANN & P-BSHADE). The results show that the root mean square error, mean absolute error, and mean relative error of all combined models are substantially smaller than those of any individual model, with the RF & P-BSHADE combined method generating the smallest values. These results indicate that a combined approach using machine learning with spatial statistics, especially the RF & P-BSHADE model, improves the accuracy of plot-level AGB models. These research results contribute to the development of accurate large-forested-landscape AGB maps.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".