MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963811783 · doi:10.5539/jas.v11n13p319

Spatial Dependence of the Site Index of Pinus taeda L. Production Forests, in the Southern Central Region of the State of Paraná, Brazil

2019· article· en· W2963811783 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maitê dos Santos Ribeiro, Júlio Eduardo Arce, Afonso Figueiredo Filho, Marcos Felipe Nicoletti

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariogramKrigingSite indexIndex (typography)Coefficient of determinationSpatial variabilityStatisticsRange (aeronautics)MathematicsPinus <genus>Linear regressionEnvironmental scienceForestryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A spatial analysis of the site index used for the classification of Pinus taeda production forests was performed using dominant height data from 402 continuous inventory plots. The data were examined with simple descriptive statistics and fit with four semivariogram models by the GS + program. The best model was then used to predict the site index in unsampled areas by ordinary kriging in ArcView. All models showed that site index values exhibited spatial dependence, with the degree of spatial dependence ranging from strong to moderate. The spherical model was used for kriging. In this model, the degree of spatial dependence was 29% and the range was 5,330 m, with a residual sum of squares (RSS) of 3.00 and coefficient of determination (r²) of 0.776. Measured and predicted values were compared by cross-validation, which produced a linear regression of observed versus predicted value with a slope coefficient of 1.068, slope standard error of 0.070, and intercept coefficient of -1.45. The site classification map generated by kriging divided the studied forests into five classes. Before kriging, all of the forest stands had one global average value for the site index, but after kriging this was changed to there being two or three values of the site index for many stands. Ordinary kriging proved to be an optimal method for interpolating the site index of unsampled areas to permit their classification, as is the case for young plantations for which inventory samples have not yet been taken.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicSoil Geostatistics and MappingFrench-language works237,207