MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793107543 · doi:10.1016/j.mex.2018.02.002

Assessing stand species and structural diversity at neighbourhood scale

2018· article· en· W2793107543 on OpenAlex
Hua Yang, Rongzhou Man

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMethodsX · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsOntario Forest Research InstituteMinistry of Natural Resources and Forestry
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeighbourhood (mathematics)Diversity (politics)Scale (ratio)GeographyEcologyBiologyMathematicsCartographySociologyAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forest diversity assessments are typically conducted at stand scale. This traditional diversity assessment may provide substantial insight into overall stand structure but is limited with respect to describing within-stand variation, an important aspect of stand diversity. This article describes a method for assessing species and structural diversity at within-stand, neighbourhood scale. •Nearest neighbours are determined from mapped tree locations in field survey plots.•R codes (provided in appendices) are used to assist with determining species and structural diversity indices at a neighbourhood of 4 trees (a subject tree and the 3 nearest neighbours).•Neighbourhood structural diversity indices are compared against structural complexity index (SCI) in capturing within-stand variation.•Neighbourhood diversity indices, especially in managed stands, are useful for capturing spatial variation in species and structural diversity.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.256 · 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