Analysis of fine rooting below skid trails using linear and generalized additive models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil compaction caused by forest machinery changes the basic conditions for root propagation below skid trails. In consequence, lower fine-root densities have to be expected under wheel tracks compared with other skid trail strata that experience no direct traffic. Explorative data analysis of fine-root densities below a skid trail revealed that the fundamental assumptions for linear modelling were violated. Using a generalized linear model following a Poisson distribution with a log link function for the predictor variables together with an exponential covariance function to cope with spatial autocorrelation, the formal model criteria were met. In contrast to the linear models, generalized additive models provide flexible surface estimators that enable us to model continuous response surfaces. In addition, generalized additive models allow for the calculation of confidence intervals for the estimated density surface and for the use of inferential statistics, such as comparisons between depth gradients of fine rooting at distinct transect locations or depth layers. These model characteristics improve the possibility to recognize differences and to evaluate fine-root disturbances below skid trails without integrating uncertain strata information. They also enhance the options for determining the duration of time that is necessary to restore the rooting capacity on formerly compacted soils.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".