Refining and evaluating a Horvitz–Thompson-like stand density estimator in individual tree detection based on airborne laser scanning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Horvitz–Thompson-like stand density estimation is a method for estimating the stand density from tree crown objects extracted from airborne laser scanning data through individual tree detection. The estimator is based on stochastic geometry and mathematical morphology of the (planar) set formed by the detected tree crowns. This set is used to approximate the detection probabilities of trees. These probabilities are then used to calculate the estimate. The method includes a tuning parameter, which needs to be known to apply the method. We present a refinement of the method to allow more general detection conditions than those of previous papers. We also present and discuss the methods for estimating the tuning parameter of the estimator using a functional k-nearest neighbors method. We test the model fitting and prediction in two spatially separate data sets and examine the plot-level accuracy of estimation. The estimator produced a 13% lower RMSE (root-mean-square error) than the benchmark method in an external validation data set. We also analyze the effects of similarity and dissimilarity of training and validation data on the results.
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 | 0.010 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".