Evaluating marginal and conditional predictions of taper models in the absence of calibration data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A systematic evaluation of nonlinear fixed- and mixed-effects taper models in volume prediction was conducted. Among 33 taper equations, the best 1- to 10-parameter fixed-effects models according to fitting statistics were further analysed by comparing their predictions against the modelling data and an independent data set. Three alternative prediction strategies were compared using the best equation (Kozak II) in the absence of calibration data (the usual situation in forestry practice). Strategy 1 used a fixed-parameter model (marginal model), strategy 2 utilized the fixed part of a mixed-effects model (conditional model), and strategy 3 calculated a marginal prediction based on the mixed-effects model by averaging the predictions over the estimated distribution of random effects. Strategies 1 and 3 performed better than strategy 2 in model evaluation (in modelling data) and model validation (independent data). Strategy 3 was less biased than strategy 1 in model validation, and both had the same mean squared deviation. Strategy 3 shares the most advantageous features of the other prediction methods and is therefore recommended for forestry practice and for further research in different modelling disciplines within forest science.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".