Separating Regressions for Model Fitting to Reduce the Uncertainty in Forest Volume-Biomass Relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The method of forest biomass estimation based on a relationship between the volume and biomass has been applied conventionally for estimating stand above- and below-ground biomass (SABB, t ha−1) from mean growing stock volume (m3 ha−1). However, few studies have reported on the diagnosis of the volume-SABB equations fitted using field data. This paper addresses how to (i) check parameters of the volume-SABB equations, and (ii) reduce the bias while building these equations. In our analysis, all equations were applied based on the measurements of plots (biomass or volume per hectare) rather than individual trees. The volume-SABB equation is re-expressed by two Parametric Equations (PEs) for separating regressions. Stem biomass is an intermediate variable (parametric variable) in the PEs, of which one is established by regressing the relationship between stem biomass and volume, and the other is created by regressing the allometric relationship of stem biomass and SABB. A graphical analysis of the PEs proposes a concept of “restricted zone,” which helps to diagnose parameters of the volume-SABB equations in regression analyses of field data. The sampling simulations were performed using pseudo data (artificially generated in order to test a model) for the model test. Both analyses of the regression and simulation demonstrate that the wood density impacts the parameters more than the allometric relationship does. This paper presents an applicable method for testing the field data using reasonable wood densities, restricting the error in field data processing based on limited field plots, and achieving a better understanding of the uncertainty in building those equations.
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 | 0.016 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".