Predicting and calibrating height to crown base: a case for Dahurian larch (<i>Larix gmelinii</i> Rupr.) in Northeastern China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The applicability of height to crown base (HCB) appears to be particularly broad given the important impact on explaining tree growth dynamics. Given the high cost of measuring HCB, accurate prediction with a few trees is popular in forestry practice. In this study, a fixed-effects model (FEM), a mixed-effects model (MEM), and quantile regressions (QR) were adopted to predict HCB using data from natural secondary forests of Dahurian larch ( Larix gmelinii Rupr.) in Northeastern China. Corresponding calibration techniques were applied to trees with different sample designs (random selection, the thickest tree selection, the intermediate tree selection, and the thinnest tree selection) and sample sizes (1–10 trees per plot). The results showed that all models achieved accurate HCB predictions. The QR calibration technique of 3-quantiles achieved simple and accurate consequences compared to 5-quantiles and 9-quantiles. MEM displayed the most robust and superior statistics. The selection of the two thickest trees was recommended for the MEM. For FEM and QR, the sample size should be exceeded by 5. Generally, a combination of MEM and sampling two thickest trees per plot to predict HCB is recommended as a win–win solution that neither sacrifices model prediction accuracy nor minimizes the required measurement cost.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".