Using crown condition variables as indicators of forest health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indicators of forest health used in previous studies have focused on crown variables analyzed individually at the tree level by summarizing over all species. This approach has the virtue of simplicity but does not account for the three-dimensional attributes of a tree crown, the multivariate nature of the crown variables, or variability among species. To alleviate these difficulties, we define composite crown indicators based on geometric principles to better quantify the entire tree crown. These include crown volume, crown surface area, and crown production efficiency. These indicators were then standardized to a mean of 0 and variance of 1 to enable direct comparison among species. Residualized indicators, which can also be standardized, were defined as the deviation from a regression model that adjusted for tree and plot conditions. Distributional properties were examined for the three composite crown indicators and their standardized-residualized counterparts for 6167 trees from 250 permanent plots distributed across Virginia, Georgia, and Alabama. Comparisons between the composite crown indicators and their associated standardized residual indicators revealed that only two or three plots were jointly classified as poor by both when thresholds were set at the lower 5 percentiles of statistical distributions. In contrast, 19-21 other plots were classified differently, emphasizing that different aspects of crown condition are being summarized when the raw values are adjusted and standardized. Generally, crown volume and crown surface area behaved similarly, while crown production efficiency was substantially different.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".