MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987256514 · doi:10.1300/j091v26n01_04

Estimators of Tree Species Richness: An Assessment for Central and Eastern Canada

2008· article· en· W1987256514 on OpenAlexaffabout
Steen Magnussen, Paul Boudewyn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Forestry · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpecies richnessEstimatorStatisticsPoisson distributionSample (material)Sampling (signal processing)Forest inventoryMathematicsHectareGeographyUnivariateSite indexEnvironmental scienceForestryEcologyForest managementMultivariate statisticsBiologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A total of 11 sample-based estimators of tree species richness (S) are evaluated in terms of accuracy and precision in a Monte Carlo simulated simple random sampling from 39,779 forest inventory plots with 7.8 million trees belonging to 85 species. The plots represent a 108 million hectare forested region in central and eastern Canada. Sample sizes varied from 50 to 800. A weighted index combining estimates of accuracy and precision identified Chao's first estimator (CHAO1) as overall best with an estimator based on the assumption of a gamma mixed Poisson distribution of species occurrence as a close runner-up. The observed sample species richness was almost always the most negatively biased estimate. A sample size of 400-700 conventional fixed area forest inventory plots are needed to produce results with bias <20%.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable ForestrySame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207