MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126455054 · doi:10.1139/x05-057

Tree diameter distribution modelling: introducing the logitlogistic distribution

2005· article· en· W2126455054 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mingliang Wang, Keith Rennolls

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Mathematical Sciences
KeywordsWeibull distributionMathematicsLogistic distributionKurtosisStatisticsLogitLogistic regressionShape parameterGeneralized beta distributionDistribution (mathematics)Univariate distributionRange (aeronautics)Log-logistic distributionDistribution fittingEconometricsProbability distributionMathematical analysisEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Johnson's S B distribution is a four-parameter distribution that is transformed into a normal distribution by a logit transformation. By replacing the normal distribution of Johnson's S B with the logistic distribution, we obtain a new distributional model that approximates S B . It is analytically tractable, and we name it the "logit–logistic" (LL) distribution. A generalized four-parameter Weibull model and the Burr XII model are also introduced for comparison purposes. Using the distribution "shape plane" (with axes skew 2 and kurtosis) we compare the "coverage" properties of the LL, the generalized Weibull, and the Burr XII with Johnson's S B , the beta, and the three-parameter Weibull, the main distributions used in forest modelling. The LL is found to have the largest range of shapes. An empirical case study of the distributional models is conducted on 107 sample plots of Chinese fir. The LL performs best among the four-parameter models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.422
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations79
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207