Fitting Volume Models for Parana Pine With a Nonlinear Regression, Genetic Algorithm and Simulated Annealing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improving volumetric quantification of Parana pine (Araucaria angustifolia) in Mixed Ombrophilous Forest is a constant need in order to provide accurate and timely information on current and future growing stock to ensure forest management. Thus, the present study aimed to evaluate and compare the volume estimates obtained through Nonlinear Regression (NR), Genetic Algorithm (GA) and Simulated Annealing (SA) in order to generate accurate volume estimates. Volumetric equations were developed including the independent variables diameter at breast height (dbh), total height (h) and crown rate (cr) and from the fit through the NR, GA and SA approaches. The GA and SA approaches evaluated proved to be a reliable optimization strategy for parameter estimation in Parana pine volumetric modelling, however, no significant differences were found in comparison with the NR approach. This study therefore contributes through the generation of robust equations that could be used for accurate estimates of the volume of the Parana pine in southern Brazil, thus supporting the planning and establishment of management and conservation actions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".