MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981639162 · doi:10.1139/x06-186

Calibration and testing of a generalized process-based model for use in Portuguese eucalyptus plantations

2006· article· en· W1981639162 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Luís Fontes, Joe Landsberg, José Tomé, Margarida Tomé, Carlos Andrés Murillo Pacheco, Paula Soares, Clara Araújo

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Regional Development FundUniversity of New South Wales
KeywordsEucalyptus globulusCalibrationEucalyptusBasal areaEnvironmental scienceMathematicsStatisticsIrrigationSet (abstract data type)ForestryComputer scienceEcologyGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The work described in this paper aimed to establish a single set of parameter values for a process-based model (3-PG), applicable to Eucalyptus globulus Labill. in Portugal. Initial testing was done with parameter values from Australia using climate, biometric, and soils data from an irrigation and fertilization trial and a spacing trial. The model provided good estimates for stem mass and basal area, poor estimates for leaf mass, and reasonable estimates for volume. The fit between simulated and observed values was then improved by tuning parameter values to produce a final set. The calibrated model was tested, and performed well, against data from permanent sample plots (PSPs) at different locations across Portugal. Volume and basal area predictions made by 3-PG for PSPs were then compared with predictions made by the empirical model in use for E. globulus plantations in Portugal. Differences were negligible. Model outputs with the Australian parameter set and the optimum set for Portugal indicated that partitioning of carbohydrates (net primary productivity) was very different in E. globulus grown in Portugal and Australia. The study has confirmed the potential of this process-based model as a practical tool to support forest management decision-making.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.721
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations66
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207