MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117369963 · doi:10.1093/forestry/cpaf088

A field study on critical height sampling with antithetic variate and importance sampling in estimating stand volume

2025· article· en· W7117369963 on OpenAlexaff
X. Zhang, Zhirou Chen, Tzeng Yih Lam

Bibliographic record

VenueForestry An International Journal of Forest Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSampling (signal processing)Basal areaVolume (thermodynamics)Random variateTree (set theory)Forest inventory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Stand volume is usually estimated by volume or taper models. Models may not always be available or reliable for estimating stand volume. Critical Height Sampling with Antithetic Variate and Importance Sampling (AICHS), built on Critical Height Sampling (CHS), is a sampling method that estimates stand volume without relying on volume models. AICHS applies Importance Sampling and antithetic variate with a proxy taper function to determine a cross-sectional area on a tree stem from which its height is measured to reduce viewing angles. It has never been studied in the field. The objectives of this field study were to compare AICHS, AICHSCYL (simplification of AICHS assuming a cylindrical stem below breast height), and CHS in estimating mean and precision of stand volume, their relative efficiency, and measurement issues. We established 65 plots in planted forests of two coniferous tree species in central Taiwan. At each plot, we used three basal area factors (BAFs) to select trees for estimating stand volume with AICHS, AICHSCYL, and CHS. Results showed that mean stand volume of AICHS was less consistent across the three BAFs than CHS. Mean stand volume of AICHS was larger than that of AICHSCYL by 25–35 m3 ha−1. The precision of AICHS was 5.8–7.1%, but it could be lower or higher than CHS depending on the tree species and the choice of BAFs. AICHS is ~29%–49% less efficient than AICHSCYL and CHS. For AICHS, 50% of the antithetic critical height measurements were below about half of total tree height, and ~42% of the measurements were in tree crowns. In summary, our field assessment suggests that AICHS might have limited field applications given its inconsistent mean estimates and precision, lower efficiency, and potential sighting issues due to crown obstructions. Nonetheless, our study highlights the importance of this field study to understand field potentials and limitations in AICHS.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.361 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestry An International Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207