MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015111511 · doi:10.1139/x01-033

Introduction and evaluation of possible indices of stand structural diversity

2001· article· en· W2015111511 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christina L. Staudhammer, Valerie LeMay

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiversity indexHectareStatisticsMathematicsBasal areaBiodiversityIndex (typography)Diversity (politics)Variance (accounting)ForestryEcologyGeographySpecies richnessBiologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stand structural diversity is useful in forecasting growth and can be indicative of overall biodiversity. Many variables that indicate structural diversity can be measured. However, species, diameter, and height are commonly measured and indicate changes in vertical and horizontal stand structure. Indices based on the distribution of basal area per hectare by diameter, height, and species were derived and evaluated by applying them to simulated and actual data sets with a wide variety of stand structures. Extending the Shannon index of diversity to proportions by species, diameter, and height resulted in reasonable results with more diverse structures having higher values. However, diameter and height ranges must be divided into classes to use these indices. A new index based on the variances of the target stand, relative to the variance of a uniformly distribution stand, showed similar diversity measures to that of the Shannon index, without the need for dividing the diameter and height data into classes. Examination of these indices for use in growth and yield modelling of complex stands is needed.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations269
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207