MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011969033 · doi:10.1139/x10-099

An inventory-based approach for modeling single-tree storm damage — experiences with the winter storm of 1999 in southwestern Germany

2010· article· en· W2011969033 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Matthias Schmidt, Marc Hanewinkel, Gerald Kändler, Edgar Kublin, Ulrich Kohnle

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTree Root and Stability Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStormPicea abiesScots pineEnvironmental scienceDeciduousForestryDiameter at breast heightWindthrowGeographyPhysical geographyAbies albaPinus <genus>Atmospheric sciencesEcologyMeteorologyGeologyBiologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on individual tree damage data dating back to the gale “Lothar” (winter 1999) in Baden-Württemberg, Germany, a statistical model was developed to estimate the risk of storm damage for individual trees. The data were compiled from the National German Forest Inventory. The model attempts to separate the effects of tree-specific variables, topography, site conditions and flow field related effects on damage probability. The crucial problem of missing information on the actual flow field parameters was solved by applying a generalized additive model that enables the simultaneous fit of a spatial trend function. The geographical location of risk hotspots as predicted by the model correspond well to the actual distribution pattern of storm damage as assessed by the forest service. Tree height proved to be one of the most important factors affecting the level of damage, while height to diameter at breast height ratio influences damage probability to a much lesser extent. The Norway spruce ( Picea abies (L.) Karst.) group has the highest potential to be damaged followed by the silver fir ( Abies alba Miller) – Douglas-fir ( Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) group and the Scots pine ( Pinus sylvestris L.) – larches ( Larix spp.) group. Predicted probabilities for deciduous trees are generally lower than those of conifers. West- to south-exposed locations bear a considerably higher damage risk and waterlogged soils show an increased predicted probability compared with slightly or not waterlogged soils.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations157
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicTree Root and Stability StudiesFrench-language works237,207