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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.295
Threshold uncertainty score0.586

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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