Additive biomass equations for slash pine trees: comparing three modeling approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both aggregative and disaggregative strategies were used to develop additive nonlinear biomass equations for slash pine (Pinus elliottii Engelm. var. elliottii) trees in the southeastern United States. In the aggregative approach, the total tree biomass equation was specified by aggregating the expectations of component biomass models, and their parameters were estimated by jointly fitting all component and total biomass equations using weighted nonlinear seemingly unrelated regression (NSUR) (SUR1) or by jointly fitting component biomass equations using weighted NSUR (SUR2). In an alternative disaggregative approach (DRM), the biomass component proportions were modeled using Dirichlet regression, and the estimated total tree biomass was disaggregated into biomass components based on their estimated proportions. There was no single system to predict biomass that was best for all components and total tree biomass. The ranking of the three systems based on an array of fit statistics followed the order of SUR2 > SUR1 > DRM. All three systems provided more accurate biomass predictions than previously published equations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".