Modeling height-diameter curves for prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individual tree heights are needed in many situations, including estimation of tree volume, dominant height, and simulation of tree growth. However, height measurements are tedious compared to tree diameter measurements, and therefore height–diameter (H–D) models are commonly used for prediction of tree height. Previous studies have fitted H–D models using approaches that include plot-specific predictors in the models and those that do not include them. In both these approaches, aggregation of the observations to sample plots has usually been taken into account through random effects, but this has not always been done. In this paper, we discuss four alternative model formulations and report an extensive comparison of 16 nonlinear functions in this context using a total of 28 datasets. The datasets represent a wide range of tree species, regions, and ecological zones, consisting of about 126 000 measured trees from 3717 sample plots. Specific R-functions for model fitting and prediction were developed to enable such an extensive model fitting and comparison. Suggestions on model selection, model fitting procedures, and prediction are given and interpretation of the predictions from different models are discussed. No uniformly best function, model formulation, or model fitting procedure was found. However, a 2-parameter Näslund and Curtis function provided satisfactory fit in most datasets for the plot-specific H–D relationship. Model fitting and height imputation procedures developed for this study are provided in an R-package for later use.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".