Development of tree recruitment models for 10 species groups in the sugar maple-dominated mixed forests of eastern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individual tree recruitment is an important element needed to understand stand dynamics, as it influences both stand composition and productivity. Forest growth simulators usually include recruitment models. The quality of recruitment predictions can have long-term impacts on estimations of forest growth, ecosystem health and the commercial utility of managed forests. The main objective of this study was to develop a recruitment model for commercial-size trees (i.e., trees with a diameter at breast height > 9 cm) of 10 species groups using different dendrometric and environmental variables. The resulting model will be included in a growth simulator used to support forest management planning. We hypothesized that accounting for sapling density as a covariate would improve the recruitment model's predictive performance. Using empirical data from periodically measured permanent sample plots (1982–2019) located throughout the managed mixed hardwood forests of Quebec, we constructed models with and without sapling-related covariates and compared them on the basis of cross-validation model performance statistics. Our results show that including sapling density significantly improved model performance. From this, we conclude that adding sapling density as a covariate can significantly improve a recruitment model's predictive power for eastern mixed hardwood forests.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".