MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136126594 · doi:10.1139/x09-041

Gaining local accuracy while not losing generality — extending the range of gap model applications

2009· article· en· W2136126594 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Markus Didion, Andrea D. Kupferschmid, Andreas Zingg, Lorenz Fahse, Harald Bugmann

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBundesamt für Umwelt
KeywordsGeneralityTree (set theory)Range (aeronautics)PruningComputer scienceDecision tree modelRepresentation (politics)Ecological successionCrown (dentistry)Simulation modelingMathematicsEcologyDecision treeData miningEngineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For the study of long-term processes in forests, gap models generally sacrifice accuracy (i.e., simulating system behavior in a quantitatively accurate manner) for generality (i.e., representing a broad range of systems’ behaviors with the same model). We selected the gap model ForClim to evaluate whether the local accuracy of forest succession models can be increased based on a parsimonious modeling approach that avoids the additional complexity of a 3D crown model, thus keeping parameter requirements low. We improved the representation of tree crowns by introducing feedbacks between (i) light availability and leaf area per tree and (ii) leaf area per tree and diameter growth rate to account for the self-pruning in real stands. The local accuracy of the new model, ForClim v2.9.5, was considerably improved in simulations at three long-term forest research sites in the Swiss Alps, while its generality was maintained as shown in simulations of potential natural vegetation along a broad environmental gradient in Central Europe. We conclude that the predictive ability of a model does not depend on its complexity, but on the reproduction of patterns. Most importantly, model complexity should be consistent with the objectives of the study and the level of system understanding.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.651
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.244 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations45
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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