Application of machine learning methods for paleoclimatic reconstructions from leaf traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Digital leaf physiognomy (DLP) is considered as one of the most promising methods for estimating past climate. However, current models built using the DLP data set still lack precision, especially for mean annual precipitation (MAP). To improve predictive power, we developed five machine learning (ML) models for mean annual temperature (MAT) and MAP respectively, and then tested the precision of these models and some of their averaging compared with that obtained from other models. The precision of all models was assessed using a repeated stratified 10‐fold cross‐validation. For MAT, three combinations of models (R2 = .77) presented moderate improvements in precision over the multiple linear regression (MLR) model (R2 = .68). For loge(MAP), the averaging of the support vector machine (SVM) and boosting models improved the R2 from .19 to .63 compared with that of the MLR model. For MAP, the R2 of this model combination was 0.49, which was much better than that of the artificial neural network (ANN) model (R2 = .21). Even the bagging model, which had the lowest R2 (.37) for loge(MAP), demonstrated better precision (R2 = .27) for MAP. Our palaeoclimate estimates for nine fossil floras were also more accurate, because they were in better agreement with independent paleoclimate evidence. Our study confirms that our ML models and their averaging can improve paleoclimatic reconstructions, providing a better understanding of the relationship between climate and leaf physiognomy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".