MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Critical evaluation of diameter increment modelling in the Great Lakes region

2008· dissertation· en· W1584863667 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bharat Pokharel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBasal areaContext (archaeology)GeographyVegetation (pathology)Environmental scienceForestryPhysical geographyEnvironmental resource managementArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Simulations of forest stand dynamics in a modelling framework including Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) are diameter driven, thus the diameter or basal area increment model needs a special attention. This dissertation critically evaluates diameter or basal area increment models and modelling approaches in the context of the Great Lakes region of the United States and Canada. A set of related studies are presented that critically evaluate the sub-model for change in individual tree basal diameter used in the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS), a dominant forestry model in the Great Lakes region. Various historical implementations of the STEMS (Stand and Tree Evaluation and Modeling System) family of diameter increment models, including the current public release of the Lake States variant of FVS (LS-FVS), were tested for the 30 most common tree species using data from the Michigan Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program. The results showed that current public release of the LS-FVS diameter increment model over-predicts 10-year diameter increment by 17% on average. Also the study affirms that a simple adjustment factor as a function of a single predictor, dbh (diameter at breast height) used in the past versions, provides an inadequate correction of model prediction bias. In order to re-engineer the basal diameter increment model, the historical, conceptual and philosophical differences among the individual tree increment model families and their modelling approaches were analyzed and discussed. Two underlying conceptual approaches toward diameter or basal area increment modelling have been often used: the potential-modifier (POTMOD) and composite (COMP) approaches, which are exemplified by the STEMS/TWIGS and Prognosis models, respectively. It is argued that both approaches essentially use a similar base function and neither is conceptually different from a biological perspective, even though they look different in their model forms. No matter what modelling approach is used, the base function is the foundation of an increment model. Two base functions – gamma and Box-Lucas – were identified as candidate base functions for forestry applications. The results of a comparative analysis of empirical fits showed that quality of fit is essentially similar, and both are sufficiently detailed and flexible for forestry applications. The choice of either base function in order to model diameter or basal area increment is dependent upon personal preference; however, the gamma base function may be preferred over the Box-Lucas, as it fits the periodic increment data in both a linear and nonlinear composite model form. Finally, the utility

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies→French-language works237,207→