Engelmann Spruce Site Index Models: A Comparison of Model Functions and Parameterizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii Parry ex Engelm.) is a high-elevation species found in western Canada and western USA. As this species becomes increasingly targeted for harvesting, better height growth information is required for good management of this species. This project was initiated to fill this need. The objective of the project was threefold: develop a site index model for Engelmann spruce; compare the fits and modelling and application issues between three model formulations and four parameterizations; and more closely examine the grounded-Generalized Algebraic Difference Approach (g-GADA) model parameterization. The model fitting data consisted of 84 stem analyzed Engelmann spruce site trees sampled across the Engelmann Spruce - Subalpine Fir biogeoclimatic zone. The fitted models were based on the Chapman-Richards function, a modified Hossfeld IV function, and the Schumacher function. The model parameterizations that were tested are indicator variables, mixed-effects, GADA, and g-GADA. Model evaluation was based on the finite-sample corrected version of Akaike's Information Criteria and the estimated variance. Model parameterization had more of an influence on the fit than did model formulation, with the indicator variable method providing the best fit, followed by the mixed-effects modelling (9% increase in the variance for the Chapman-Richards and Schumacher formulations over the indicator variable parameterization), g-GADA (optimal approach) (335% increase in the variance), and the GADA/g-GADA (with the GADA parameterization) (346% increase in the variance). Factors related to the application of the model must be considered when selecting the model for use as the best fitting methods have the most barriers in their application in terms of data and software requirements.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".