How many plots are needed to estimate sapling density and stocking in temperate forests?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Performing a complete silvicultural diagnosis before a silvicultural treatment generally requires assessing the state of regeneration with the help of an inventory by sampling, particularly for stands dominated by sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.) or yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis Britt.), in which partial cuts are recommended. This inventory may then be compared to the standard or used in a growth model for saplings (trees for which the diameter measured at 1.3 m above the ground (DBH) varies from 1.1 cm to 9.0 cm). Some of these tools are based on sapling density, while others are based on the stocking of the saplings or on the stocking of total regeneration (combining saplings and seedlings with a DBH ≤ 1.0 cm). We assessed the number of plots required to estimate the density and the stocking of saplings with a given margin of error in 28 stands. The results show that more plots are required than usual in practice to inventory sapling density. The stocking is much easier to estimate precisely.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".