A mixture model-based approach to the classification of ecological habitats using Forest Inventory and Analysis data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Gaussian mixture model (GMM) is used to classify Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) plots into six ecological habitats in the northeastern USA. The GMM approach captures intra-class variation by modeling each habitat class as a mixture of subclasses of Gaussian distributions. The classification is achieved based on the appropriate posterior probability. The GMM classifier outperforms a traditional statistical method (i.e., linear discriminant analysis or LDA), and produces similar overall accuracy rates to a commonly used neural network model (i.e., multi-layer perceptrons or MLP). For the classifications of individual ecological habitats, however, MLP produces better (or same) producers' classification accuracies for five of the six ecological habitats than does GMM. But the GMM's accuracy rates are more consistent (92%97%) across the six ecological habitats than those of the MLP model (82%99%). This study shows that GMM offers an attractive alternative for modeling the complex stand structure and relationships between variables in mixed-species forest stands.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 it