MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1575787645 · doi:10.2737/nrs-gtr-67

FORCARB2: An updated version of the U.S. Forest Carbon Budget Model

2010· report· en· W1575787645 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Linda S. Heath, Michael C. Nichols, James E. Smith, John R. Mills

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExecutableDownloadForest inventoryGreenhouse gasComputer scienceForest managementForestryForest ecologyCarbon stockStock (firearms)DatabaseCarbon accountingProductivityCarbon sequestrationEcosystemWorld Wide WebGeographyOperating systemEcologyClimate change

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

FORCARB2, an updated version of the U.S. FORest CARBon Budget Model (FORCARB), produces estimates of carbon stocks and stock changes for forest ecosystems and forest products at 5-year intervals. FORCARB2 includes a new methodology for carbon in harvested wood products, updated initial inventory data, a revised algorithm for dead wood, and now includes public forest land, reserved forest land, and forest land of low productivity. The model has been used to provide estimates and projections for policy-related needs, including the Resources Planning Act timber resource assessment and forest-related greenhouse gas inventories of the United States, and has provided the basis for an analysis of forest carbon for Ontario, Canada. The program is written in FORTRAN and is text based, though virtually every parameter is defined by input text-based files that can be modified or built by the user. We expect users who are fairly advanced in terms of knowledge about computers will be most capable in using this model. Step-by-step instructions for running the program, input and output files, and codes used are included, and input files for public forest lands of the United States are provided as an example. All electronic files for download, including the model source code, executable files, and input and output files are available at http://nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/35613.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations32
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207