Developing and Validating Nonlinear Height–Diameter Models for Major Tree Species of Ontario's Boreal Forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Six commonly used nonlinear growth functions were fitted to individual tree height-diameter data of nine major tree species in Ontario's boreal forests. A total of 22,571 trees was collected from new permanent sample plots across the northeast and northwest of Ontario.The available data for each species were split into two sets: the majority (90%) was used to estimate model parameters, and the remaining data (10%) were reserved to validate the models. The performance of the models was compared and evaluated by model, R2, mean difference, and mean absolute difference. The results showed that these six sigmoidal models were able to capture the height–diameter relationships and fit the data equally well, but produced different asymptote estimates. Sigmoidal models such as Chapman–Richards, Weibull, and Schnute functions provided the most satisfactory height predictions. The effect of model performance on tree volume estimation was also investigated. Tree volumes of different species were computed by Honer's volume equations using a range of diameters and the predicted tree total height from the six models. For trees with diameter less than 55 cm, the six height-diameter models produced very similar results for all species, while more differentiation among the models was observed for large-sized trees (e.g., diameters > 80 cm). North. J. Appl. For. 18:87–94.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".