MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2184541833 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2014-0435

Linear mixed-effects models and calibration applied to volume models in two rotations of <i>Eucalyptus grandis</i> plantations

2015· article· en· W2184541833 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Edgar de Souza Vismara, Lauri Mehtätalo, João Luı́s Ferreira Batista

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEucalyptusCalibrationRotation (mathematics)MathematicsBivariate analysisUnivariateStatisticsMixed modelTree (set theory)Linear modelForestryMultivariate statisticsEcologyGeographyGeometryCombinatoricsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work presents applications of the linear mixed-effects model calibration to predict individual tree volumes of Eucalyptus grandis W. Hill ex Maiden plantations on first and second rotations located in different farms of the same region in São Paulo, Brazil. We started with the Schumacher and Hall equation in its linearized form to develop our mixed-effects model. Some parameters were considered as random among the different farms, and the calibration was made at the farm level using a small number of sample trees. The approach was developed for univariate models of the first rotation, which were calibrated with first- and second-rotation trees, and for bivariate models of the two rotations, which were calibrated with first-rotation trees. The results showed that the calibrated mixed model provides more reliable predictions than the fixed part of the model alone; however, the benefit is only moderate due to the rather small variation of the stem form between farms and rotations. The results indicate that the approach can reduce the measurement requirements on second-rotation crops.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations22
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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