Generalized stem taper and tree volume equations applied to eucalyptus of varying genetics in Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lack of generalized equations has prevailed in Brazil, because it is assumed that localized or climate-specific equations are needed. This study aimed to develop generalized stem taper and volume equations applicable to 11 eucalyptus clones and evaluate if climate variation impacts the accuracy of the estimates. A total of 693 trees evenly distributed across 11 clones at 21 sites were used for model fittings and predictive validation. The penalized mixed spline (PMS) approach was developed for predicting stem taper and volume along the stem profile. The Schumacher and Hall (1933) equation was used to predict total tree volume, while volume ratio equations were applied to predict merchantable volume. For every fitted equation, an annual climatic variable was included to assess the improvement in model performance. The overall results highlighted that climatic variation does not need to be accounted for in stem taper and volume modeling. All of the equations displayed desirable accuracy, but the generalized PMS equation may be preferred when the forestry enterprise looks to furnish a range of multiple forest products. The generalized total tree volume equation, combined with the ratio equations, is highly recommended when the forestry enterprise produces a single product.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".