MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4225001644 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2021-0200

A correction for serial nonindependence in mountain pine beetle aerial survey data to reduce overestimation of cumulative damage

2022· article· en· W4225001644 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Devin W. Goodsman, J. Weber

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceNatural Resources CanadaU.S. Forest ServiceParks Canada
KeywordsMountain pine beetleForestryDendroctonusGeographyInfestationPhysical geographyEcologyEnvironmental scienceStatisticsBark beetleBiologyMathematicsAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the beginning of this century, an unprecedented mountain pine beetle ( Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins) outbreak expanded across western North America. Methods are needed to quantify its impact on forests. Although aerial survey data of infestation are readily available, their translation to tree mortality estimates is challenging because the polygons sketched by aerial surveyors to delimit infested regions often overlap from one year to the next, which produces a lack of independence in yearly estimates of infested landscape. This problem manifests when annual proportions of infested land are summed over years because the sum often exceeds one. Cumulative proportions of infested land larger than one implies overestimation of tree mortality if initial densities of available host trees are multiplied by annual proportions of infested landscape. To address this problem, we developed a probabilistic method for correcting for nonindependence in proportions of infested land recorded using overlapping polygons. We demonstrate our approach in Jasper National Park where the probabilistic correction reduces overestimation bias in regions that were infested multiple years when predictions are compared to validation data. The approach and the spatial raster data sets we generated will be useful to forest managers seeking to quantify the impact of mountain pine beetles.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.108
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.108
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.093
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.269 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→