MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3084274527 · doi:10.3389/fenvs.2020.00149

Demonstration and Testing of the Improved Shelterbelt Component in the Holos Model

2020· article· en· W3084274527 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Roland Kröbel, Julius Moore, Yu Zhao Ni, Aaron McPherson, Laura Poppy, Raju Soolanayakanahally, Beyhan Y. Amichev, Tricia Ward, Colin P. Laroque, Ken C.J. Van Rees, Fardausi Akhter

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Environmental Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsWindbreakEvergreenDeciduousEnvironmental scienceBiomass (ecology)CaraganaShrubAgroforestryMathematicsAgronomyEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using a participatory approach, the shelterbelt component of Canada’s whole-farm model Holos was upgraded from an age-determined to a circumference-determined (at breast height) calculation using a multi-stem averaging approach. The model interface was developed around the idea that a shelterbelt could have multiple rows, and a variable species composition within each row. With this, the model calculates the accumulated aboveground carbon in the standing biomass and a lookup table of modelled tree growth is used to add estimates of the belowground carbon. Going from an initial interface that asks for the current state, the model also incorporates an option of past and future shelterbelt plantings. In order to test the model’s suitability, we measured diverse shelterbelts (evergreen, deciduous, shrub type) in southern Saskatchewan, Canada representing commonly planted woody species. By making use of Caragana, Green Ash, Colorado Spruce, Siberian Elm, and a mixed Caragana/Green Ash tree rows, we tested how many tree circumference measurements would be required to yield a representative average. Later, these results were incorporated in the Holos model to calculate the accumulated above- and below-ground carbon in each shelterbelt type.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score0.580

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Environmental ScienceSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207