Partition idéalisée et régionalisée de la composition en espèces ligneuses des forêts françaises
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest tree species strongly influence forest dynamics and management. French forests have the greatest compositional diversity in Europe, which constrains the quantitative analysis of associated wood resources. A partition of French forests according to dominant tree species composition and stratified by biogeographical regions (GRECO) was developed in order to handle this diversity. The partition relies on forest composition as measured by the national forest inventory (2006–2015, > 65,000 plots). It builds on the J-shaped distribution of elementary composition abundance, identifies dominant compositions describing at least 50% of the GRECO's area, and groups minor compositions. An ecological assessment of this partition and its application to the analysis of the growing stock are developed. The partition describes 61.4% of the forest area (66% of the growing stock) according to 29 dominant compositions, demonstrating its efficiency. These compositions revealed the importance of broadleaved mixtures, and of neglected forest strata (pine species in Northern France). Growing stock density appeared lowest in broadleaved compositions (Mediterranean oaks), and highest in some coniferous compositions (silver fir/Norway spruce mixture in mountains). Partitioning highlights the role of ecological contexts and forest management on tree diversity.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".