Methods for estimating aboveground biomass and its components for Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimating aboveground biomass and its components requires sound statistical formulation and evaluation. Using data collected from 55 destructively sampled trees in different parts of Oregon, we evaluated the performance of three groups of methods to estimate total aboveground biomass and (or) its components based on the bias and root mean squared error (RMSE) that they produced. The first group of methods used an analytical approach to estimate total and component biomass using existing equations and produced biased estimates for our dataset. The second group of methods used a system of equations fitted with seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) and were superior to the first group of methods in terms of bias and RMSE. The third group of methods predicted the proportion of biomass in each component using beta regression, Dirichlet regression, and multinomial log-linear regression. The predicted proportions were then applied to the total aboveground biomass to obtain the amount of biomass in each component. The multinomial log-linear regression approach consistently produced smaller RMSEs compared with both SUR methods. The beta and Dirichlet regressions were superior to both SUR methods except for Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) branch biomass, for which the simple SUR method produced smaller RMSE compared with the beta and Dirichlet regressions.
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 | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".