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 ( R 2 = .77) presented moderate improvements in precision over the multiple linear regression (MLR) model ( R 2 = .68). For log e (MAP), the averaging of the support vector machine (SVM) and boosting models improved the R 2 from .19 to .63 compared with that of the MLR model. For MAP, the R 2 of this model combination was 0.49, which was much better than that of the artificial neural network (ANN) model ( R 2 = .21). Even the bagging model, which had the lowest R 2 (.37) for log e (MAP), demonstrated better precision ( R 2 = .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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".