High Resolution Site Index Prediction in Boreal Forests Using Topographic and Wet Areas Mapping Attributes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationships between environmental factors and the site index (SI) of trembling aspen, lodgepole pine, and white spruce based on the sampling of temporary sample plots. LiDAR generated digital elevation models (DEM) and wet areas mapping (WAM) provided data at a 1 m resolution for the study area in Alberta. Six different catchment areas (CA), ranging from 0.5 ha to 10 ha, were tested to reveal optimal CA for calculation of the depth-to-water (DTW) index from WAM. Using different modeling methods, species-specific SI models were developed for three datasets: (1) topographic and wet area variables derived from DEM and WAM, (2) only WAM variables, and (3) field measurements of soil and topography. DTW was selected by each statistical method for each species and, in most cases, DTW was the strongest predictor in the model. In addition, differences in strength of relationships were found between species. Models based on remotely-sensed information predicted SI with a root mean squared error (RMSE) of 1.6 m for aspen and lodgepole pine, and 2 m for white spruce. This approach appears to adequately portray the variation in productivity at a fine scale and is potentially applicable to forest growth and yield modeling and silviculture planning.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".