Fitting forestry models using generalized additive models: a taper model example
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nonparametric and semiparametric modelling methods are commonly applied in many fields. However, such methods have not been widely adopted in forestry, other than the most similar neighbour and nearest neighbor methods. Generalized additive modelling is a flexible semiparametric regression method that is useful when model-based prediction is the main goal and the parametric form of the model is unknown and possibly complex. Routines to fit generalized additive models (GAMs) are now readily available in much statistical software, making them an attractive option for forest modelling. Here, the use of GAMs is demonstrated by the construction of a taper model for six tree species in British Columbia, Canada. We compare the results with an existing flexible parametric taper model. We assess the performance of the models using the 0.632+ bootstrap method according to five key attributes: whole-stem volume, merchantable volume, number of logs, small-end diameter of the first log, and volume of the first log. The results show that the GAMs and the flexible taper function yielded similar accuracy for all attributes and all species.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".