The Richit–Richards family of distributions and its use in forestry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Johnson’s SBand the logit–logistic are four-parameter distribution models that may be obtained from the standard normal and logistic distributions by a four-parameter transformation. For relatively small data sets, such as diameter at breast height measurements obtained from typical sample plots, distribution models with four or less parameters have been found to be empirically adequate. However, in situations in which the distributions are complex, for example in mixed stands or when the stand has been thinned or when working with aggregated data, then distribution models with more shape parameters may prove to be necessary. By replacing the symmetric standard logistic distribution of the logit–logistic with a one-parameter “standard Richards” distribution and transforming by a five-parameter Richards function, we obtain a new six-parameter distribution model, the “Richit–Richards”. The Richit–Richards includes the “logit–Richards”, the “Richit–logistic”, and the logit–logistic as submodels. Maximum likelihood estimation is used to fit the model, and some problems in the maximum likelihood estimation of bounding parameters are discussed. An empirical case study of the Richit–Richards and its submodels is conducted on pooled diameter at breast height data from 107 sample plots of Chinese fir ( Cunninghamia lanceolata (Lamb.) Hook.). It is found that the new models provide significantly better fits than the four-parameter logit–logistic for large data sets.
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 | 0.014 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".