Measurement uncertainty in a national forest inventory: results from the northern region of the USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Statistical confidence in estimates of timber volume, carbon storage, and other forest attributes depends, in part, on the uncertainty in field measurements. Surprisingly, measurement uncertainty is rarely reported, even though national forest inventories routinely repeat field measurements for quality assurance. We compared measurements made by field crews and quality assurance crews in the Forest Inventory and Analysis program of the U.S. Forest Service, using data from 2790 plots and 51 740 trees and saplings across the 24 states of the Northern Region. We characterized uncertainty in 12 national core tree-level variables; seven tree crown variables used in forest health monitoring; three variables describing seedlings; and 11 variables describing the site, such as elevation, slope, and distance from a road. Discrepancies in measurement were generally small but were higher for some variables requiring judgment, such as tree class, decay class, and cause of mortality. When scaled up to states, forest types, or the region, uncertainties in basal area, timber volume, and aboveground biomass were negligible. Understanding all sources of uncertainty is important to designing forest monitoring systems, managing the conduct of the inventory, and assessing the uncertainty of forest attributes required for making regional and national forest policy decisions.
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 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".