Spatial model of site index based on γ-ray spectrometry and a digital elevation model for two <i>Pinus</i> species in Tuan Toolara State Forest, Queensland, Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Site index prediction models are an important aid for forest management and planning activities. This paper introduces a multiple regression model for spatially mapping and comparing site indices for two Pinus species ( Pinus elliottii Engelm. and Queensland hybrid, a P. elliottii × Pinus caribaea Morelet hybrid) based on independent variables derived from two major sources: γ-ray spectrometry (potassium (K), thorium (Th), and uranium (U)) and a digital elevation model (elevation, slope, curvature, hillshade, flow accumulation, and distance to streams). In addition, interpolated rainfall was tested. Species were coded as a dichotomous dummy variable; interaction effects between species and the γ-ray spectrometric and geomorphologic variables were considered. The model explained up to 60% of the variance of site index and the standard error of estimate was 1.9 m. Uranium, elevation, distance to streams, thorium, and flow accumulation significantly correlate to the spatial variation of the site index of both species, and hillshade, curvature, elevation and slope accounted for the extra variability of one species over the other. The predicted site indices varied between 20.0 and 27.3 m for P. elliottii, and between 23.1 and 33.1 m for Queensland hybrid; the advantage of Queensland hybrid over P. elliottii ranged from 1.8 to 6.8 m, with the mean at 4.0 m. This compartment-based prediction and comparison study provides not only an overview of forest productivity of the whole plantation area studied but also a management tool at compartment scale.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".