Using disaggregation to link individual-tree and whole-stand growth models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data from 200 plots randomly selected from the Southwide Pine Seed Source Study of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) were used to fit whole-stand and individual-tree equations. Another 100 plots, also randomly selected, were used for validation. Outputs from the individual-tree model were then adjusted to match observed stand attributes (number of trees, basal area, and volume per hectare) by four disaggregation methods: proportional yield, proportional growth, constrained least squares, and coefficient adjustment. The first three are existing methods, and the fourth is new. The four methods produced similar results, and the coefficient adjustment was then selected as the method to disaggregate predicted stand growth among trees in the tree list. Results showed that, compared to the unadjusted individual tree model, the adjusted tree model performed much better in predicting stand attributes, while providing comparable predictions of tree diameter, height, and survival probability. The proposed approach showed promise in the ongoing effort to link growth models having different resolutions.
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 | 0.001 | 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".