Individual height–diameter models for young black spruce (<i>Picea mariana</i>) and jack pine (<i>Pinus banksiana</i>) plantations in New Brunswick, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historically, height–diameter models have mainly been developed for mature trees; consequently, few height–diameter models have been calibrated for young forest stands. In order to develop equations predicting the height of trees with small diameters, 46 individual height–diameter models were fitted and tested in young black spruce (Picea mariana) and jack pine (Pinus banksiana) plantations between the ages of 4 to 8 years, measured from 182 plots in New Brunswick, Canada. The models were divided into 2 groups: a diameter group and a second group applying both diameter and additional stand- or tree-level variables (composite models). There was little difference in predicting tree height among the former models (Group I) while the latter models (Group II) generally provided better prediction. Based on goodness of fit (R 2 and MSE), prediction ability (the bias and its associated prediction and tolerance intervals in absolute and relative terms), and ease of application, 2 Group II models were recommended for predicting individual tree heights within young black spruce and jack pine forest stands. Mean stand height was required for application of these models. The resultant tolerance intervals indicated that most errors (95%) associated with height predictions would be within the following limits (a 95% confidence level): [-0.54 m, 0.54 m] or [-14.7%, 15.9%] for black spruce and [-0.77 m, 0.77 m] or [-17.1%, 18.6%] for jack pine. The recommended models are statistically reliable for growth and yield applications, regeneration assessment and management planning. Key words: composite model, linear model, model calibration, model validation, prediction interval, tolerance interval
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".