A bootstrap-based approach to combine individual-based forest growth models and remotely sensed data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Combining forest growth models with remotely sensed data is possible under a generalized hierarchical model-based (GHMB) inferential framework. This implies the existence of two submodels: the growth model itself ($\mathcal{M}_{1}$) and a second submodel that links the growth predictions to some remotely sensed variables ($\mathcal{M}_{2}$). Analytical GHMB estimators are available to fit submodel $\mathcal{M}_{2}$ and account for the uncertainty stemming from submodel $\mathcal{M}_{1}$, i.e. the growth model. However, when the growth model is individual based, it is usually too complex to be differentiated with respect to its parameters. As a result, the analytical GHMB estimators cannot be used. In this study, we developed a bootstrap approach for the GHMB inferential framework in order to combine individual-based forest growth models with remotely sensed data. Through simulation studies, we showed that the bootstrap estimators were nearly unbiased when both submodels were linear. The estimator of the parameter estimates remained nearly unbiased when submodel $\mathcal{M}_{1}$ became complex, i.e. non-differentiable, and submodel $\mathcal{M}_{2}$ was nonlinear with heterogeneous variances and correlated error terms. The variance estimator showed some biases but these were relatively small. We further demonstrated through a real-world case study that the predictions of a complex individual-based model could be linked to a Landsat-8 near-infrared spectral band in the boreal forest zone of Quebec, Canada.
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 | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".