The International Tree‐Ring Data Bank (<scp>ITRDB</scp>) revisited: Data availability and global ecological representativity
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim The International Tree‐Ring Data Bank ( ITRDB ) is the most comprehensive database of tree growth. To evaluate its usefulness and improve its accessibility to the broad scientific community, we aimed to: (a) quantify its biases, (b) assess how well it represents global forests, (c) develop tools to identify priority areas to improve its representativity, and d) make available the corrected database. Location Worldwide. Time period Contributed datasets between 1974 and 2017. Major taxa studied Trees. Methods We identified and corrected formatting issues in all individual datasets of the ITRDB . We then calculated the representativity of the ITRDB with respect to species, spatial coverage, climatic regions, elevations, need for data update, climatic limitations on growth, vascular plant diversity, and associated animal diversity. We combined these metrics into a global Priority Sampling Index ( PSI ) to highlight ways to improve ITRDB representativity. Results Our refined dataset provides access to a network of >52 million growth data points worldwide. We found, however, that the database is dominated by trees from forests with low diversity, in semi‐arid climates, coniferous species, and in western North America. Conifers represented 81% of the ITRDB and even in well‐sampled areas, broadleaves were poorly represented. Our PSI stressed the need to increase the database diversity in terms of broadleaf species and identified poorly represented regions that require scientific attention. Great gains will be made by increasing research and data sharing in African, Asian, and South American forests. Main conclusions The extensive data and coverage of the ITRDB show great promise to address macroecological questions. To achieve this, however, we have to overcome the significant gaps in the representativity of the ITRDB . A strategic and organized group effort is required, and we hope the tools and data provided here can guide the efforts to improve this invaluable database.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 it