MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999009029 · doi:10.1139/x07-194

Generic biomass functions for Common beech (<i>Fagus sylvatica</i>) in Central Europe: predictions and components of uncertainty

2008· article· en· W1999009029 on OpenAlex
Thomas Wutzler, Christian Wirth, Jens Schumacher

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeechFagus sylvaticaAkaike information criterionBiomass (ecology)StatisticsVariance (accounting)MathematicsTree (set theory)ResidualSite indexAltitude (triangle)Environmental scienceEconometricsEcologyBiologyAccountingAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study provides a comprehensive set of functions for predicting biomass for Common beech ( Fagus sylvatica L.) in Central Europe for all major tree compartments. The equations are based on data of stem, branch, timber, brushwood (wood with diameter below 5 or 7 cm), foliage, root, and total aboveground biomass of 443 trees from 13 studies. We used nonlinear mixed-effects models to assess the contribution of fixed effects (tree dimensions, site descriptors), random effects (grouping according to studies), and residual variance to the total variance and to obtain realistic estimates of uncertainty of biomass on an aggregated level. Candidate models differed in their basic form, the description of the variance, and inclusion of various combinations of additional fixed and random effects and were compared using the Akaike information criterion. Model performance increased most when accounting for between-study differences in the variability of biomass predictions. Further, performance increased with the inclusion of age, site index, and altitude as predictor variables. We show that neglecting variance partitioning and the fact that prediction errors of trees are not independent with respect to their predictor variables will lead to a significant underestimation of prediction variance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.311
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.224 · 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