MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2173449488 · doi:10.1139/x11-117

Modeling annualized occurrence, frequency, and composition of ingrowth using mixed-effects zero-inflated models and permanent plots in the Acadian Forest Region of North America

2011· article· en· W2173449488 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Rongxia Li, Aaron R. Weiskittel, John A. Kershaw

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersU.S. Forest ServiceU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsNegative binomial distributionMathematicsBasal areaStatisticsPoisson distributionPoisson regressionCount dataRegression analysisCovariateCompositional dataEconometricsGeographyPopulationForestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forest tree ingrowth is a highly variable and largely stochastic process. Consequently, predicting occurrence, frequency, and composition of ingrowth is a challenging task but of great importance in long-term forest growth and yield model projections. However, ingrowth data often require different statistical techniques other than traditional Gaussian regression, because these data are often bounded, skewed, and non-normal and commonly contain a large fraction of zeros. This study presents a set of regression models based on discrete Poisson and negative binomial probability distributions for ingrowth data collected from permanent sample plots in the Acadian Forest Region of North America. Models considered here include regular Poisson, zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP), zero-altered Poisson (ZAP; hurdle Poisson), regular negative binomial (NB), zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB), and zero-altered negative binomial (ZANB; hurdle NB). Plot-level random effects were incorporated into each of these models. The ZINB model with random effects was found to provide the best fit statistics for modeling annualized occurrence and frequency of ingrowth. The key explanatory variables were stand basal area per hectare, percentage of hardwood basal area, number of trees per hectare, a measure of site quality, and the minimum measured diameter at breast height of each plot. A similar model was developed to predict species composition. All models showed logical behavior despite the high variability observed in the original data.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations79
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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