MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6930399572 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.13932138

Moderate-resolution mapping of aboveground biomass stocks, forest structure, and composition in coastal Alaska and British Columbia

2025· dataset· en· W6930399572 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2025
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPacific Northwest Research StationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiomass (ecology)Forest inventoryClimate changeBasal areaEcosystemForest ecologyBiodiversity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The forests of coastal Alaska and British Columbia are globally significant for their high carbon storage capacity and complex forest structure, hosting some of the densest values of aboveground biomass in the world. These ecosystems support biodiversity, provide critical habitat, and serve as long-term carbon sinks, offering resilience to climate change. However, comprehensive, spatially continuous estimates of forest structure across this region have been limited, particularly across political boundaries. In this study, we used a Gradient Nearest Neighbor (GNN) modeling approach to integrate extensive forest inventory plot data with satellite-derived environmental variables. This approach enabled us to produce high-resolution (30-meter) maps of aboveground biomass, species-specific biomass, forest age, basal area, and additional structural attributes. Our results indicate that climate and topography accounted for the majority of the explainable variation across all modeling regions. Predictions of aboveground live biomass were higher than previous estimates, particularly in Southeast Alaska, where estimates were 30-53% greater than previous studies. Forest structure varied across the region, with older forests found in Southeast Alaska and higher tree densities in British Columbia. Collectively, the coastal forests of Alaska and British Columbia store approximately 3.58 petagrams of carbon. These spatially explicit maps offer critical insights for forest management, carbon monitoring, and biodiversity conservation across this ecologically diverse and politically fragmented landscape. Citations for Forest Inventory and Analysis: Burrill, Elizabeth A.; DiTommaso, Andrea M.; Turner, Jeffery A.; Pugh, Scott A.; Christensen, Glenn; Perry, Carol J.; Lepine, Lucie C.; Walker, David M.; Conkling, Barbara L. 2024. The Forest Inventory and Analysis Database, FIADB user guides, volume database description (version 9.2), nationwide forest inventory (NFI). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1042 p. [Online]. Available at web address: https://www.fs.usda.gov/research/products/dataandtools/datasets/fia-datamart Citation for Forest Analysis and Inventory Branch: Bourgeois, William; Brinley, Clark; LeMay, Valerie; Moss, Ian; Reynolds, Nick. 2018. “British Columbia Forest Inventory Review Panel Technical Background Report.” Office of the Chief Forester Division, British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development, December 2018. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/forestry/stewardship/forest-analysis-inventory/brp_technical_document_final.pdf. Distribution Liability: The USDA Forest Service manages resource information and derived data as a service to users of USDA Forest Service digital geographic data. The USDA Forest Service is in no way condoning or endorsing the application of these data for any given purpose. It is the sole responsibility of the user to determine whether or not the data are suitable for the intended purpose. It is also the obligation of the user to apply those data in an appropriate and conscientious manner. The USDA Forest Service provides no warranty, nor accepts any liability occurring from any incorrect, incomplete, or misleading data, or from any incorrect, incomplete, or misleading use of these data. Use Constraints: The USDA Forest Service makes no warranty, expressed or implied, including the warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, nor assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, reliability, completeness or utility of these geospatial data, or for the improper or incorrect use of these geospatial data. These geospatial data and related maps or graphics are not legal documents and are not intended to be used as such. The data and maps may not be used to determine title, ownership, legal descriptions or boundaries, legal jurisdiction, or restrictions that may be in place on either public or private land. Natural hazards may or may not be depicted on the data and maps, and users should exercise due caution. The data are dynamic and may change over time. The user is responsible to verify the limitations of the geospatial data and to use the data accordingly.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.831

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it