MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1960796310 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2012-0476

Classifying forestland from model-generated tree species habitat suitability in the Western Ecoregion of Nova Scotia, Canada

2013· article· en· W1960796310 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Mark Baah‐Acheamfour, Charles P.‐A. Bourque, Fan‐Rui Meng, D. Edwin Swift

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest ServiceUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEcoregionBeechEnvironmental scienceNova scotiaYellow birchForestryRange (aeronautics)BalsamHabitatGeographyForest managementSilvicultureMaplePhysical geographyEcologyBotanyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forestland classification is central to the sustainable management of forests. In this paper, we explore the possibility of classifying forestland from species–habitat–suitability indices and a hybrid classification of modeled data. Raster-based calculations of species–habitat–suitability were derived as a function of landscape-level descriptions of incident photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), soil water content (SWC), and growing degree-days (GDD) for southwestern Nova Scotia, Canada. PAR and SWC were both generated with the LanDSET model and GDD from thermal data captured with the space-borne MODIS sensor. We compared the distribution of predicted forestland types with the natural range of target species as found in the provincial permanent sample plots (PSPs). Reasonable agreement (≥50% accuracy) existed between some forestland types (e.g., red maple – white birch – red oak and balsam fir – red maple) and PSP-based assessments of species presence–absence. Agreement was noticeably lower for other forestland types, such as sugar maple – beech – yellow birch (<50% accuracy). This discrepancy is attributed to forest-forming factors not directly addressed by the model, e.g., forest succession, stand interventions, and disturbance. Their addition in the model could change the dynamics of tree-species preference in southwest Nova Scotia and is worth examining. True model inaccuracies accounted for about 0.3%–15.0% of the total reported error.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change→French-language works237,207→