MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2110268633 · doi:10.1109/pma.2006.22

A Matrix Growth Model of Natural Spruce-Balsam Fir Forest in New Brunswick, Canada

2006· article· en· W2110268633 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Xiangdong Lei, Changhui Peng, Yuanchang Lu, Xiaopeng Zhang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBalsamBasal areaAbies balsameaForestrySoftwoodHardwoodEnvironmental scienceAgroforestryGeographyEcologyBotanyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A density-dependent matrix model was developed for spruce-balsam fir natural forest stands in New Brunswick, Canada. It predicted the number and basal area of trees for 5 species groups (spruce, balsam fir, other softwood, soft hardwood and hard hardwood) and 10 diameter classes. Upgrowth, ingrowth and mortality models were established with explanatory variables representing tree size, stand density and stand structure. The model was based on 305 sample plots with inventory periods from 2 to 9 years. The majority of the data (80%) was used for model development, and the rest (20%) was used for model validation. It was concluded that the model is a reliable and fairly accurate tool for short-term prediction of growth of spruce-balsam fir forest in Canada. Future work on refinements of the model is discussed.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicForest ecology and management→French-language works237,207→