MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076669040 · doi:10.1051/forest:2004001

Stem profile equations for young trembling aspen in northern Ontario

2004· article· en· W2076669040 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael T. Ter‐Mikaelian, W. T. Zakrzewski, G. B. MacDonald, David Weingartner

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Forest Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsOntario Forest Research Institute
FundersUniversity of Pittsburgh
KeywordsForestryEnvironmental scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stem profile equations were developed for young trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.)growing on 6 different sites in northern Ontario.The objective was to develop a model using stem diameter at any height to predict stem diameter at other heights and then compare the model among sites.The 262 sample trees were split into calibration (180) and validation (82) sets.Four stem profile models having from 1 to 3 parameters were tested for parameter significance for each site, and then compared among sites.Data analysis was performed using bootstrap methods.One of the 4 models was not significantly different (P > 0.278) among sites.Validation of this model produced mean prediction errors and mean relative prediction errors of less than 0.001 cm and 0.09%, respectively; standard deviations of these errors were 0.15 cm and 4.09%, respectively.The presented method can be used to develop stem profile equations that are applicable to a broad range of growing conditions. Populus tremuloides / stem profile models / stem diameter / bootstrap methodsRésumé -Équations de profil de tige de jeunes trembles de l'Ontario septentrional.On a mis au point des équations de profil de tige pour des trembles (Populus tremuloides Michx.)se développant dans 6 stations différentes du nord de l'Ontario.L'objectif était de créer un modèle utilisant le diamètre pris à n'importe quelle hauteur pour prédire le diamètre à d'autres hauteurs et ensuite pour comparer les modèles selon les sites.Les 262 arbres témoins ont été affectés soit au calibrage (180) soit à la validation (82).Sur quatre modèles comportant de 1 à 3 paramètres, on a d'abord testé le caractère significatif des paramètres dans chaque site, puis procédé à des comparaisons entre sites.Pour l'analyse des données on a utilisé les méthodes « bootstrap ».L'un des 4 modèles ne présentait pas de différence significative (P > 0,278) entre sites.La validation de ce modèle inique une prédiction d'erreur moyenne et d'erreur relative moyenne respectivement inférieurs à 0,001 cm et 0,09 %.Les écarts types de ces erreurs étaient de 0,15 cm et 4,09 %.La méthode présentée peut être utilisée pour développer des équations de profil de tige applicables à une vaste gamme de conditions de croissance. Populus tremuloides / diamètre de tige / méthodes « bootstrap »

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.665
Threshold uncertainty score0.665

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Forest ScienceSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207