MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4245671045 · doi:10.5558/tfc2014-096

MPB Critical Forest Inventory

2014· article· en· W4245671045 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForest inventoryMountain pine beetleContext (archaeology)Forest managementInventory valuationEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental resource managementForestryAgroforestryBusinessGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Mountain Pine Beetle epidemic in Alberta has been substantial, with several forest products companies facing a potential decrease in fibre supply as a result. Accurate forest inventory is integral in developing management strategies that effectively address the infestation. Within this context, forest inventory must provide enough species composition detail to allow the design of appropriate harvesting activities. The project evaluated the use of softcopy photo-interpretation and a semi-automated inventory approach to create a forest inventory with a higher level of detail, and looked to advance these methodologies to explore whether metrics such as tree height and volume could also be included. The project also aimed to demonstrate the benefits that such an inventory could provide in growth and yield analysis and within the general framework of integrated land management. Results indicate that the more detailed inventory is useful in addressing forest management challenges associated with the Mountain Pine Beetle infestation and in improving growth and yield analysis, resulting in an overall enhancement to strategic and operational planning. The inventory can also be used for integrated land management, allowing for species composition to be spatially identified within the stand and the identification of other features including anthropogenic disturbance and microsites.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.710
Threshold uncertainty score0.577

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1250.030

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry Chronicle→Same topicForest Insect Ecology and Management→French-language works237,207→