Mechanistic and statistical approaches to predicting wind damage to individual maritime pine (<i>Pinus pinaster</i>) trees in forests
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maritime pine (Pinus pinaster Aiton) forests in the Aquitaine region, southwestern France, suffered catastrophic damage from storms Martin (1999) and Klaus (2009), and more damage is expected in the future due to forest structural change and climate change. Thus, developing risk assessment methods is one of the keys to finding forest management strategies to reduce future damage. In this paper, we evaluated two approaches to calculate wind damage risk to individual trees using data from different damage data sets from two storm events. Airflow models were coupled either with a mechanistic model (GALES) or a bias-reduced logistic regression model to discriminate between damaged and undamaged trees. The mechanistic approach was found to successfully discriminate the trees for different storms but only in locations with soil conditions similar to where the model parameters were obtained from previous field experiments. The statistical approach successfully discriminated the trees only when applied to similar data as that used for creating the models, but it did not work at an acceptable level for other data sets. One variable, decade of stand establishment, was a significant variable in all statistical models, suggesting that site preparation and tree establishment could be a key factor related to wind damage in this region.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it