Application of machine-learning methods in forest ecology: recent progress and future challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning, an important branch of artificial intelligence, is increasingly being applied in sciences such as forest ecology. Here, we review and discuss three commonly used methods of machine learning (ML) including decision-tree learning, artificial neural network, and support vector machine and their applications in four different aspects of forest ecology over the last decade. These applications include: (i) species distribution models, (ii) carbon cycles, (iii) hazard assessment and prediction, and (iv) other applications in forest management. Although ML approaches are useful for classification, modeling, and prediction in forest ecology research, further expansion of ML technologies is limited by the lack of suitable data and the relatively “higher threshold” of applications. However, the combined use of multiple algorithms and improved communication and cooperation between ecological researchers and ML developers still present major challenges and tasks for the betterment of future ecological research. We suggest that future applications of ML in ecology will become an increasingly attractive tool for ecologists in the face of “big data” and that ecologists will gain access to more types of data such as sound and video in the near future, possibly opening new avenues of research in forest ecology.
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 | 0.019 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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".