Building a high-resolution site index map using boosted regression trees: the Norwegian case
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate estimation of site productivity is essential for forest projections and scenario modelling. We present and evaluate models to predict site index (SI) and whether a site is productive (potential total stem volume production ≥ 1 m 3 ·ha −1 ·year −1 ) in a wall-to-wall high-resolution (16 m × 16 m) SI map for Norway. We investigate whether remotely sensed data improve predictions. We also study the advantages and disadvantages of using boosted regression trees (BRT), a machine-learning algorithm, to create high-accuracy SI maps. We use climatic and topographical data, soil parent material, a land resource map, and depth to water, together with Sentinel-2 satellite images and airborne laser scanning metrics, as predictor variables. We use the SI observed at more than 10 000 National Forest Inventory (NFI) sample plots throughout Norway to fit BRT models and validate the models using 5822 independent temporary plots from the NFI. We benchmark our results against SI estimates from forest monitoring inventories. We find that the SI from BRT has root mean squared error (RMSE) ranging from 2.3 m (hardwoods) to 3.6 m (spruce) when tested against independent validation data from the NFI temporary plots. These RMSEs are similar or marginally better than an evaluation of SI estimates from operational forest management plans where SI normally stems from manual photo interpretation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".