MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2612924886 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2016-0498

Using survival analysis to predict the harvesting of forest stands in Quebec, Canada

2017· article· en· W2612924886 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
L. C. Melo, Robert Schneider, Rubén Manso, Jean-Pierre Saucier, Mathieu Fortin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des ForêtsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsBasal areaStatisticsContext (archaeology)Plot (graphics)MathematicsVariable (mathematics)Contrast (vision)Forest inventoryRandom forestForest plotEnvironmental scienceForestryEconometricsGeographyForest managementComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Survival analysis methods make better use of temporal information, accommodate multiple levels of explanatory variables, and are meant to deal with interval-censored data. In a context of harvest modeling, this approach could improve some known limitations. In this study, we used data from a network of permanent plots in the province of Quebec, Canada, as a real-world case study. We tested the potential of survival analysis to predict plot-level harvest probabilities from plot- and regional-level variables. The approach also included random effects to account for spatial correlations. The results showed the potential of survival analysis to provide annual predictions of harvest occurrence. Both regional and time-varying variables, as well as spatial patterns, had important effects on the probability of a plot to be harvested. Respectively, reductions in the annual allowable cut volumes led to a decrease in the harvest probabilities. Greater harvest probabilities were associated with the broadleaved dynamics class and higher values of basal area. In contrast, they were decreased by stem density and slope classes. The spatial random effect resulted in an improvement of the model fit. Our plot-level model improved some limitations reported in previous studies by taking the effect of a time-varying regional variable into account.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.678

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207