MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090137677 · doi:10.1139/x05-112

Canadian national tree aboveground biomass equations

2005· article· en· W2090137677 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
M.-C. Lambert, C-H Ung, Frédéric Raulier

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Natural Resources Limited
KeywordsBiomass (ecology)Forest inventoryEnvironmental scienceDiameter at breast heightStatisticsSeemingly unrelated regressionsTree allometryTree (set theory)MathematicsForestrySampling (signal processing)National forestForest managementEcologyAgroforestryGeographyBiomass partitioningBiologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The estimation of aboveground biomass density (organic dry mass per unit area) is required for balancing Canadian national forest carbon budgets. Tree biomass equations are the basic tool for converting inventory plot data into biomass density. New sets of national tree biomass equations have therefore been produced from archival biomass data collected at the beginning of the 1980s through the ENergy from the FORest research program (ENFOR) of the Canadian Forest Service. Since the sampling plan was not standardized among provinces and territories, data had to be harmonized before any biomass equation could be considered at the national level. Two features characterize the new equations: estimated biomass of the compartments (foliage, branch, wood, and bark) are constrained to equal the total biomass, and dependence among error terms for the considered compartments of the same tree is taken into account in the estimates of both the model parameters and the variance prediction. The estimation method known to economists as “seemingly unrelated regression” allowed the inclusion of dependencies among the error terms of the considered biomass compartments. Sets of equations based on diameter at breast height (dbh) and on dbh and height have been produced for 33 species, groups of hardwood and softwood, and for all species combined. Biomass predicted by the new equations was compared with that estimated from provincial equations to evaluate the loss of accuracy when scaling up from the regional to the national scale. Bias and error of prediction from the set of national equations based on dbh and height were generally more similar to those from provincial equations than to those of predictions from the set of equations based on dbh alone.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.005

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations540
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207