Overcoming data sparseness and parametric constraints in modeling of tree mortality: a new nonparametric Bayesian model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurately describing patterns of tree mortality is central to understanding forest dynamics and is important for both management and ecological inference. However, for many tree species, annual survival of most individuals is high, so that mortality is rare and, therefore, difficult to estimate. Furthermore, tree mortality models have potentially complex suites of covariates. Here, we extend traditional and recent approaches to modeling tree mortality and propose a new nonparametric Bayesian method. Our model is constrained to both reflect and distinguish known relationships between mortality and its two key covariates, diameter and diameter increment growth, but it remains sufficiently flexible to capture a wide variety of patterns of mortality across these covariates. Our model also allows incorporation of outside information in the form of priors, so that increased mortality of large trees can always be formally modeled even when data are sparse. We present results for our nonparametric Bayesian mortality model for maple ( Acer spp.), holly ( Ilex spp.), sweet gum ( Liquidambar styraciflua L.), and tulip-poplar ( Liriodendron tulipifera L.) populations from North Carolina, USA.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".