Predictive mapping of forest composition and structure with direct gradient analysis and nearest- neighbor imputation in coastal Oregon, U.S.A.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spatially explicit information on the species composition and structure of forest vegetation is needed at broad spatial scales for natural resource policy analysis and ecological research. We present a method for predictive vegetation mapping that applies direct gradient analysis and nearest-neighbor imputation to ascribe detailed ground attributes of vegetation to each pixel in a digital landscape map. The gradient nearest neighbor method integrates vegetation measurements from regional grids of field plots, mapped environmental data, and Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) imagery. In the Oregon coastal province, species gradients were most strongly associated with regional climate and geographic location, whereas variation in forest structure was best explained by Landsat TM variables. At the regional level, mapped predictions represented the range of variability in the sample data, and predicted area by vegetation type closely matched sample-based estimates. At the site level, mapped predictions maintained the covariance structure among multiple response variables. Prediction accuracy for tree species occurrence and several measures of vegetation structure and composition was good to moderate. Vegetation maps produced with the gradient nearest neighbor method are appropriately used for regional-level planning, policy analysis, and research, not to guide local management decisions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".