A network approach for evaluating and communicating forest change models
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Summary 1. Knowledge of forest change is often formalized in state‐and‐transition models (STMs). These models generate forecasts of forest condition that are widely used for forest management planning. Common techniques for evaluating such models are complex, requiring specialized skills not available to non‐modellers. Consequently, model transparency can be limited, hampering collaborative resource modelling that otherwise may increase the chances of management success. 2. We demonstrate evaluation of STMs through network visualization that produces intuitively accessible results, comparable to results of more commonly applied, complex techniques. To evaluate this approach, we statistically test model similarities with empirical data. As examples, we use STMs of forest change, alternately parameterized with information from experts and literature, and compare them to our empirical reference information. 3. Graph theoretical analyses revealed differences in structure and dynamics between alternate STMs. For example, compared to empirical STMs, expert STMs were less complex while literature STMs were more complex. Overall, expert STMs were less similar to empirical STMs than were literature STMs, suggesting information in the expert STMs may deviate more strongly from empirical reference data. 4. We used several techniques that provided complementary information, which produced a comprehensive view of network similarity. We speculate that differences between expert and empirical STMs result from lower complexity of mental models compared to empirical data. While we illustrated our approach using a simple matrix model, it could be adapted for more complex STMs. Improvements of the proposed approach could involve representation of forest change rates with waiting times depicted by multigraphs. 5. Synthesis and applications . Common evaluations of forest change STMs involve complex techniques not easily accessible to non‐modellers. Approaching such models as networks makes their evaluation and statistical testing intuitively accessible to many audiences. Benefits of this approach to modellers include improved communication about models with non‐modellers, while benefits to stakeholders and decision makers include enhanced understanding of models. This may aid a collaborative resource modelling process and should improve the chances of successful resource management plan implementation. While we used an example from boreal forests, our approach could be applied to many other vegetation types globally.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».