MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2467371573 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2016-0009

Improving plant biomass estimation in the field using partial least squares regression and ridge regression

2016· article· en· W2467371573 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Brian M. Ohsowski, Kari E. Dunfield, John N. Klironomos, Miranda M. Hart

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomass (ecology)RegressionPartial least squares regressionStatisticsRegression analysisBiologyAllometryCollinearitySampling (signal processing)RidgeLinear regressionOrdinary least squaresGeneralized least squaresEcologyMathematicsComputer scienceEstimator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estimating primary productivity over time is challenging for plant ecologists. The most accurate biomass measurements require destructive sampling and weighing. This is often not possible for manipulative studies that involve repeated measures over time, or for studies in protected areas. Estimates of aboveground plant biomass using allometric equations or linear regression on single plant traits have been used, but tend to have poor predictability both within and across systems, or are limited to specific plant taxa. Here we estimate aboveground plant biomass using multiple collinear plant traits to generate a standard curve specific to the site of interest. Partial least squares regression (PLS) and ridge regression (RR), addressing predictor collinearity, are robust, highly accurate statistical methods to estimate plant biomass across gross differences in plant morphology and growth habit.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.236 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations29
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207