MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2182873250 · doi:10.5558/tfc2011-053

Predicting maximum branch diameter from crown dimensions, stand characteristics and tree species

2011· article· en· W2182873250 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Arthur Groot, Robert Schneider

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à RimouskiNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
FundersUniversity of Pittsburgh
KeywordsBasal areaCrown (dentistry)Tree (set theory)Range (aeronautics)RADIUSMathematicsForestryEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceGeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forest resource inventories must include wood quality information to support the optimum use of wood fibre. The objective of this study was to develop models relating maximum live branch diameter (MBD), which affects lumber value, to tree and stand characteristics that can be measured through current and emerging remote sensing technologies. Using non-linear mixed effects models for six Canadian conifer species, as well as for three broad-leaved species, MBD was related to crown radius, tree height, crown length, stand basal area, and basal area of trees larger than the subject tree. Models that included only individual tree characteristics (crown radius, tree height, and crown length) did not perform as well as models that additionally included stand characteristics (stand basal area and basal area of larger trees). Models that took into account tree species performed better than models that did not; in particular, broadleaved species had much thicker branches than conifers. The best model did not show bias with respect to independent variables and had root mean square error of 0.32 cm. For the best model, prediction error was not related to silvicultural treatment. These model characteristics strongly support the potential to successfully predict MBD from remotely sensed 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.182 · 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.

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

Citations19
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207