MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2938335595 · doi:10.1093/forestry/cpz020

The effect of natural and anthropogenic disturbances on the uncertainty of large-area forest growth forecasts

2019· article· en· W2938335595 on OpenAlexafffundabout
L. C. Melo, Robert Schneider, Mathieu Fortin

Bibliographic record

VenueForestry An International Journal of Forest Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsCanadian Forest ServiceNatural Resources CanadaUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoMinistère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Variance (accounting)EstimatorEnvironmental scienceBaseline (sea)EconometricsMonte Carlo methodStatisticsMathematicsGeographyEconomicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to estimate the contribution of disturbances to the uncertainty of forest growth forecasts in the Bas-Saint-Laurent region in Quebec, Canada. We focused on two major disturbances affecting that region: spruce budworm (SBW) outbreaks and harvest activities. Growth forecasts were carried out for a period of 100 years (2003–2103) using ARTEMIS-2009, a stochastic individual-based model. Using the Monte Carlo technique, we simulated four scenarios: a baseline; a harvest scenario; a SBW scenario; and a scenario including both harvest and SBW. Uncertainty estimation was performed using a bootstrap variance estimator that applies to the context of hybrid inference. The results revealed that the total variances increased over time. For the scenarios including SBW, the variances were three to six times greater than those in the scenarios without outbreaks. Harvesting did not greatly contribute to the total variance. We conclude that to reduce the uncertainty of large-area growth forecasts in the Bas-Saint-Laurent, considering SBW dynamics is a crucial issue.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestry An International Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207