Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally, separate models have been used to predict the number of trees per unit area (stand-level survival) and the survival probability of an individual tree (tree-level survival) at a certain age. This study investigated the development of integrated systems in which survival models at different levels of resolution are related in a mathematical structure. Two approaches for modeling tree and stand survival were considered: deriving a stand-level survival model from a tree-level survival model (approach 1) and deriving a tree survival model from a stand survival model (approach 2). Both approaches rely on finding a tree diameter that yields a tree survival probability equal to the stand-level survival probability. The tree and stand survival models from either approach are conceptually compatible with each other but not numerically compatible. Parameters of these models can be estimated either sequentially or simultaneously. Results indicated that approach 2, with parameters estimated sequentially (first from the stand survival model and then from the derived tree survival model), performed best in predicting both tree- and stand-level survival. Although disaggregation did not help improve prediction of tree-level survival, this method can be used when numerical consistency between stand and tree survival is desired.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".