Using a segmented logistic model to predict trees to be harvested in forest growth forecasts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim of the study: Predicting future harvested trees is a prerequisite to growth forecasts in managed forest stands. While harvest algorithms have been traditionally used, statistical harvest models could be an interesting alternative approach. The objective of this study was to fit statistical harvest models for different partial cutting treatments.Area of study: The study has been carried out in the province of Quebec, Canada.Material and Methods: Data from provincial control survey were used to fit harvest models for three different partial cutting treatments. A two-segment logistic modelling approach was used. The harvest models were designed to be compatible with the ARTEMIS growth simulator, which is currently in use in this province. Main results: The results showed that the probability of being harvested is different across the treatments and primarily depends on tree diameter at breast height and species. In selection cutting treatments in particular, trees close to the merchantable limit (e.g., 23 cm in this study) tended to be less frequently harvested than those with smaller or larger diameters, yielding a sinusoidal pattern that was well captured by the segmented approach. Research highlights: Although the models were of average accuracy as indicated by fit statistics, they made it possible to compare different scenarios in terms of productivity and rotation length when coupled with the ARTEMIS growth simulator. Moreover, compatibility requirements between the simulator and the harvest models appeared to be a major limitation in some cases.Keywords: Harvesting; statistical model; segmented approach; growth forecasts; managed 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.
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 | 0.001 | 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".