MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020251668 · doi:10.1080/00045608.2014.910072

Predicting Functional Role and Occurrence of Whitebark Pine ( <i>Pinus albicaulis</i> ) at Alpine Treelines: Model Accuracy and Variable Importance

2014· article· en· W2020251668 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lynn M. Resler, Yang Shao, Diana F. Tomback, George P. Malanson

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the Association of American Geographers · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersParks CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsVariable (mathematics)Tree (set theory)Random forestKeystone speciesEcologyGeographyComputer scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligenceBiologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At some alpine treelines in the Rocky Mountains, whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis)—a keystone species—plays a central role in tree island development through facilitation. Whitebark pine occurs both as a solitary tree and also as a component of tree islands, although relative importance of these two patterns varies geographically. We examine the utility of four predictive models to understand how the functional role of a keystone species varies spatially with biophysical conditions. We use a novel data set to predict whitebark pine's functional role, characterized by spatial association and relative position within a tree island at three North American Rocky Mountain treelines. For the study areas combined, and at a study area level, we compared prediction accuracy and variable importance among these modeling approaches: general linear models, classification and regression trees, random forests, and support vector machines. Results revealed that the keystone role of whitebark pine varied spatially. For the combined model, growing season temperature and slope curvature were the most important predictive variables for association and relative position, as revealed by overall agreement among the four models. Prediction accuracy and variable importance varied at the study area level, though, indicating that different conclusions could be drawn from each model, if examined independently. We advocate comparing results from different modeling approaches for complex, field-derived data sets because it might enable a better understanding of model and variable selection and appropriateness of input data resolution. Furthermore, comparative modeling enables assessment of the relative predictive and interpretive capacities of each modeling approach.

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 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations20
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the Association of American GeographersSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207