MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2125409366 · doi:10.1109/ijcnn.2002.1007718

Urban tree growth modelling with artificial neural network

2003· article· en· W2125409366 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre Jutras, Shiv O. Prasher, Chun‐Chieh Yang, C. Hamel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiameter at breast heightTree (set theory)Index (typography)Urban forestCrown (dentistry)Forest managementArtificial neural networkComputer scienceForestryGeographyMathematicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Municipal administrations devote large budgets in order to preserve the integrity of their urban forests. However, urban ecological conditions are extreme for tree growth and survival. Strict management is therefore mandatory but critical information is missing on procedures that would provide for successful planting and growth. The empirically acquired knowledge of practitioners must be captured into computerised models to improve the efficiency of urban forest management and existing tree data banks. A back-propagation ANN model was built to provide assistance in deciding urban planting sites and to predict tree parameters. The first expected outputs from the ANN study were the accurate predictions of tree diameter at breast height (DBH measurement), tree diameter growth index (DBH increment) and total crown growth index. Two levels of modelling were performed; a general prediction model for all species under study and specific species by species models. Results are consistent for both levels.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.166 · 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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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