Predicting forest growth and yield in northeastern Ontario using the process-based model of TRIPLEX1.0
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Process-based carbon dynamic models are rarely validated against traditional forest growth and yield data and are difficult to use as a practical tool for forest management. To bridge the gap between empirical and process-based models, a simulation using a hybrid model of TRIPLEX1.0 was performed for the forest growth and yield of the boreal forest ecosystem in the Lake Abitibi Model Forest in northeastern Ontario. The model was tested using field measurements, forest inventory data, and the normal yield table. The model simulations of tree height and diameter at breast height (DBH) showed a good agreement with measurements for black spruce (Picea mariana (Mill.) BSP), jack pine (Pinus banksiana Lamb.), and trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.). The coefficients of determination (R2) between simulated values and permanent sample plot measurements were 0.92 for height and 0.95 for DBH. At the landscape scale, model predictions were compared with forest inventory data and the normal yield table. The R2 ranged from 0.73 to 0.89 for tree height and from 0.72 to 0.85 for DBH. The simulated basal area is consistent with the normal yield table. The R2 for basal area ranged from 0.82 to 0.96 for black spruce, jack pine, and trembling aspen for each site class. This study demonstrated the feasibility of testing the performance of the process-based carbon dynamic model using traditional forest growth and yield data and the ability of the TRIPLEX1.0 model for predicting growth and yield variables. The current work also introduces a means to test model accuracy and its prediction of forest stand variables to provide a complement to empirical growth and yield models for forest management practices, as well as for investigating climate change impacts on forest growth and yield in regions without sufficient established permanent sample plots and remote areas without suitable field measurements.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".