MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138113693 · doi:10.1139/x00-162

A generalized logistic model of individual tree mortality for aspen, white spruce, and lodgepole pine in Alberta mixedwood forests

2001· article· en· W2138113693 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Xiaohong Yao, Stephen J. Titus, S. Ellen Macdonald

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPinus contortaBasal areaForestryBorealDiameter at breast heightTaigaSite indexAbies balsameaStatisticsTransectMathematicsEnvironmental scienceBiologyEcologyBotanyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A generalized logistic model of individual tree mortality was developed for trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.), white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss), and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm.) in Alberta boreal mixedwood forests based on an empirical data base of permanent sample plots. The model is suitable for observations from unequal remeasurement intervals. The maximum likelihood estimation was used to fit the model, the likelihood ratio test was combined with our understanding of mortality process to select the important variables, and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test was conducted to evaluate the fit. The fitted model predicts the survival probability of an individual tree based on the tree diameter at breast height, annual diameter increment, stand basal area, species composition, and site productivity.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.650
Threshold uncertainty score0.695

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations122
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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