Mapping and imputing potential productivity of Pacific Northwest forests using climate variables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regional estimation of potential forest productivity is important to diverse applications, including biofuels supply, carbon sequestration, and projections of forest growth. Using PRISM (Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model) climate and productivity data measured on a grid of 3356 Forest Inventory and Analysis plots in Oregon and Washington, we evaluated four possible imputation methods to estimate potential forest productivity: nearest neighbour, multiple linear regression, thin plate spline functions, and a spatial autoregressive model. Productivity, measured by potential mean annual increment at culmination, is explained by the interaction of annual temperature, precipitation, and climate moisture index. The data were randomly divided into 2237 reference plots and 1119 target plots 30 times. Each imputation method was evaluated by calculating the coefficient of determination, bias, and root mean square error of both the target and reference data set and was also tested for evidence of spatial autocorrelation. Potential forest productivity maps of culmination potential mean annual increment were produced for all Oregon and Washington timberland.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".