Forestry Big Data: A Review and Bibliometric Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to improved data collection and processing techniques, forestry surveys are now more efficient and accurate, generating large amounts of forestry data. Forestry Big Data (FBD) has become a critical component of the forestry inventory investigation system. In this study, publications on FBD were identified via the Web of Science database, and a comprehensive bibliometric analysis, network analysis, and analysis of major research streams were conducted to present an overview of the FBD field. The results show that FBD research only began nearly a decade ago but has undergone an upswing since 2016. The studies were mainly conducted by China and the US, and collaboration among authors is relatively fragmented. FBD research involved interdisciplinary integration. Among all the keywords, data acquisition (data mining and remote sensing) and data processing (machine learning and deep learning) received more attention, while FBD applications (forecasting, biodiversity, and climate change) have only recently received attention. Our research reveals that the FBD research is still in the infancy stage but has grown rapidly in recent years. Data acquisition and data processing are the main research fields, whereas FBD applications have gradually emerged and may become the next focus.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.153 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".