Analysis of vegetation distribution in Interior Alaska and sensitivity to climate change using a logistic regression approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim To understand drivers of vegetation type distribution and sensitivity to climate change. Location Interior Alaska. Methods A logistic regression model was developed that predicts the potential equilibrium distribution of four major vegetation types: tundra, deciduous forest, black spruce forest and white spruce forest based on elevation, aspect, slope, drainage type, fire interval, average growing season temperature and total growing season precipitation. The model was run in three consecutive steps. The hierarchical logistic regression model was used to evaluate how scenarios of changes in temperature, precipitation and fire interval may influence the distribution of the four major vegetation types found in this region. Results At the first step, tundra was distinguished from forest, which was mostly driven by elevation, precipitation and south to north aspect. At the second step, forest was separated into deciduous and spruce forest, a distinction that was primarily driven by fire interval and elevation. At the third step, the identification of black vs. white spruce was driven mainly by fire interval and elevation. The model was verified for Interior Alaska, the region used to develop the model, where it predicted vegetation distribution among the steps with an accuracy of 60–83%. When the model was independently validated for north‐west Canada, it predicted vegetation distribution among the steps with an accuracy of 53–85%. Black spruce remains the dominant vegetation type under all scenarios, potentially expanding most under warming coupled with increasing fire interval. White spruce is clearly limited by moisture once average growing season temperatures exceeded a critical limit (+2 °C). Deciduous forests expand their range the most when any two of the following scenarios are combined: decreasing fire interval, warming and increasing precipitation. Tundra can be replaced by forest under warming but expands under precipitation increase. Main conclusion The model analyses agree with current knowledge of the responses of vegetation types to climate change and provide further insight into drivers of vegetation change.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".