Simultaneous estimation of biomass models for 13 tree species: effects of compatible additivity requirements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A desirable feature of biomass models distinguishing different tree components is compatible additivity of the component functions. Due to forcing of parameter estimates, such additivity is achieved at an expense of precision of the component functions. This study aimed to analyse the loss of precision incurred by forcing of parameters in tree biomass models due to (i) additivity constraints, (ii) combining global and species-specific parameters, and (iii) estimating component functions simultaneously as a system instead of as individual equations. Based on biomass data from 697 trees including 13 different species, we estimated a set of compatibly additive, nonlinear biomass models using simultaneous estimation and compared these with less restricted model systems. In line with other similar studies, the overall model system explained 88%–99% of the variation in individual biomass components. Compared with the unrestricted model, restricting parameters to obtain compatible additivity resulted in a change in RMSE of –0.6% to 5.4%. When restricting parameter estimates using both species-specific and global parameters, RMSE increased by 1.7%–13.1%. Estimating model parameters using simultaneous estimation (nonlinear iterated seemingly unrelated regression, NSUR) increased model bias compared with ordinary least squares estimation (OLS) for most biomass components. Contrary to expectations, NSUR estimation did not lead to a reduction in the standard error of estimates.
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 | 0.013 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".