A comparison of alternative methods for estimating the self-thinning boundary line
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fundamental validity of the self-thinning "law" has been debated over the last three decades. A long-standing concern centers on how to objectively select data points for fitting the self-thinning line and the most appropriate regression method for estimating the two coefficients. Using data from an even-aged Pinus strobus L. stand as an example, we show that quantile regression (QR), deterministic frontier function (DFF), and stochastic frontier function (SFF) methods have the potential to produce an upper limiting boundary line above all plots for the maximum sizedensity relationship, without subjectively selecting a subset of data points based on predefined criteria. On the other hand, ordinary least squares (OLS), corrected ordinary least squares (COLS), and reduced major axis (RMA) methods are sensitive to the data selected for model fitting and may produce self-thinning lines with inappropriate slopes. However, statistical inference is very difficult with the DFF and QR methods. Although SFF produces a self-thinning line lower than the upper limiting boundary line because of the nature of the method, it can easily produce the statistics for inference on the model coefficients, given that there are no significant departures from underlying distributional assumptions.
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 | 0.029 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".