Calibrating predicted diameter distribution with additional information in growth and yield predictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diameter distribution of the growing stock is essential in many forest management planning problems. The diameter distribution is the basis for predicting, for example, timber assortments of a stand. Usually the predicted diameter distribution is scaled so that the stem number (or basal area) corresponds to the measured value (or predicted future value), but it may be difficult to obtain a distribution that gives correct estimates for all known variables. Diameter distributions that are compatible with all available information can be obtained using an approach adopted from sampling theory, the calibration estimation. In calibration estimation, the original predicted frequencies are modified so that they respect a set of constraints, the calibration equations. In this paper, an example of utilizing diameter distributions in growth and yield predictions is presented. The example is based on individual tree growth models of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.). Calibration estimation was utilized in predicting the diameter distribution at the beginning of the simulation period. Then, trees were picked from the distribution and their development was predicted with individual tree models. In predicting the current stand characteristics, calibrated diameter distributions proved to be efficient. However, in predicting future yields, calibration estimation did not significantly improve the accuracy of the results.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".