MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106440172 · doi:10.1139/x05-233

Spatial information for scheduling core area production in forest planning

2006· article· en· W2106440172 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yu Wei, Howard M. Hoganson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsRaster graphicsScheduling (production processes)Computer scienceForest managementSpatial analysisViewshed analysisRaster dataEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingGeographyAgroforestryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forest core area is the portion of the forested landscape that is free from edge effects from surrounding areas. Forest core area is important for specific plant communities and wildlife species. Identifying spatial interdependencies of site-specific management decisions is an important step for recognizing core area production in forest management scheduling models. A forest-wide map layer of influence zones can be used to identify the interdependencies. Each influence zone is a potential area for producing core area. Each is unique in terms of the specific combination of management units that interact to influence core area production. A raster-based approach is presented for identifying influence zones and estimating their area. Tests considered the need for precision in terms of the size of the raster cells for accurately identifying influence zones and estimating their size. Tests, using a 100 m buffer width for defining core area, show that scheduling results were relatively insensitive to gains in precision from using raster cell widths less than 30 m.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.483
Threshold uncertainty score0.903

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations19
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207