MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4220763287 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2021-0243

Individual-level distance-independent-based growth and yield prediction models for long-term Japanese cedar (<i>Cryptomeria japonica</i>)

2022· article· en· W4220763287 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Keiko Fukumoto, Tomohiro Nishizono, Fumiaki Kitahara

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCryptomeriaMean squared errorStatisticsMathematicsDiameter at breast heightJaponicaTerm (time)Yield (engineering)ForestryGeographyBotanyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Yield prediction has been determined to be vital in sustainable forest management. Recently, research trends have shifted from stand-level to individual-level yield prediction. In this study, we examined the effectiveness of yield prediction models based on a distance-independent approach for Japanese cedar (Cryptomeria japonica (L.f.) D.Don) trees in western Japan. We further examined the accuracy of the models with reference to existing data collected over the long-term. First, we constructed distance-independent height, diameter growth, and survival models. Then, we simulated for approximately 50 years individual tree height, diameter at breast height (DBH), and volume growth using the test data. We then compared the predicted and observed values and calculated root-mean-square error (RMSE) and bias to evaluate the model accuracy. The models were noted to perform well when predicting mean height, DBH, and volume for Japanese cedar trees; in fact, they adequately predicted the diameter distribution. Our results suggest that distance-independent models could adequately predict long-term mean values and diameter distribution. However, RMSE and bias indicated that error propagation occurred over longer time spans. Thus, it is effective to conduct actual measurements at some point in the forest development phase and use the measurements as initial values for short- or medium-term predictions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicForest ecology and management→French-language works237,207→