Predicting the strength of <i>Populus</i> spp. clones using artificial neural networks and ε-regression support vector machines (ε-rSVM)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Wood properties, including bending stiffness and strength, basic density and microfibril angle were experimentally obtained for six aspen and six hybrid poplar clones grown in Western Canada. Data analysis attempted to establish a relationship between wood mechanical properties and intrinsic wood attributes by means of artificial neural networks (ANN) and ε-regression support vector machines (ε-rSVM) employing a 5-fold cross validation approach (5-fold CV). Initial results for strength were acceptable, but require further improvement. Estimations of stiffness results (MOE) were inferior to those of strength (MOR) due to the fact that in several regression cases, the developed model worked well for narrow windows of data, but failed on a large scale due to the high variations in the values of the input data vectors. In such cases, the result is probably the development of regression with uneven performance throughout the input data set, and therefore the modeling capacity is poor. To avoid this predicament, different neural networks with one output neuron were developed in order to estimate either the stiffness or the strength, and at the same time the approximation capabilities of ε-rSVM were employed. In both methods, 5-fold CV was carried out in order to attain a more generalized solution by eliminating the boundary effect phenomena and by avoiding local behavior of the global support vector regression. The resultant models were evaluated by common metrics. The best ANN for the estimation of strength in combination with 5-fold CV, was a modular back propagation with average R 2 =0.70, and mean root mean square error (MRMSE) equal to 0.19 and mean average percent error (MAPE) equal to 12.5%. The Gaussian kernel 5-fold CV ε-rSVM estimated MOR with similar accuracy. The best 5-fold CV ANN for MOE estimation was a feed forward back propagation one, with average R 2 =0.60, MRMSE equal to 0.23 and MAPE equal to 41.5%, which was better than all other kernel methods employed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".