Potential of Bayesian formalism for the fusion and assimilation of sequential forestry data in time and space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest resource assessments based on multi-source and multi-temporal data have become more common. Therefore, enhancing the prediction capabilities of forestry dynamics by efficiently pooling and analyzing time-series and spatial sequential data is now more pivotal. Bayesian filtering and smoothing provide a well-defined formalism for the fusion or assimilation of various data. We ascertained how often the generic, standardized Bayesian framework is used in the scientific literature and whether such an approach is beneficial for forestry applications. A review of the literature showed that the use of Bayesian methods appears to be less common in forestry than in other disciplines, particularly remote sensing. Specifically, time-series analyses were found to favor ad hoc methods. Our review did not reveal strong numeric evidence for better performance by the various Bayesian approaches, but this result may be partly due to the challenge in comparing a variety of methods for different prediction tasks. We identified methodological challenges related to assimilating predictions of forest development; in particular, combining modelled growth with disturbances due to both forest operations and natural phenomena. Nevertheless, the Bayesian frameworks provide possibilities to efficiently combine and update prior and posterior predictive distributions and derive related uncertainty measures that appear under-utilized in forestry.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".