An Uncertainty Analysis for Carbon Quantification from Above-Ground Tree Biomass: Predicting Uncertainties in Allometric Models in Canada and Sweden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In compliance with international commitments to address the increasingly urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, countries prepare national GHG inventories (NGHGI). NGHGIs include annual estimates of anthropogenic GHG emissions and removals. Reliable data in NGHGIs are essential for creating effective climate change policies and mitigation strategies, determining compliance with internationally agreed-upon targets, and tracking the sources and trends of GHG emissions and reductions. The above-ground biomass (AGB) carbon pool from the forestry sector is expected to contribute largely to carbon reductions; however, data for this sector is highly uncertain due to quantification challenges. These uncertainties have adversely impacted the reliability of the climate mitigation strategies and policies based on this data. AGB is quantified mainly by employing a Tier 3 approach involving allometric models derived from forest inventory data. A review of published literature indicated a need for research on the methods used to quantify model uncertainties and the effects of these uncertainties on carbon estimates from AGB. This research employs a simulation-based uncertainty analysis to quantify model uncertainties in carbon estimates from AGB allometric models. The literature, manuals, and R software were used to develop the uncertainty analysis. Alternative uncertainty analysis approaches were proposed to determine their effects on the uncertainty estimates. Case studies were performed for study areas in Canada and Sweden to determine the feasibility of the uncertainty analysis method when used in different countries. The results of this study demonstrated how model uncertainties can be quantified using the proposed uncertainty analysis method, and how estimates can be adjusted for uncertainties. The uncertainty estimates did not differ significantly from using the alternative uncertainty analysis methods. The main causes of model uncertainty for both case studies were due to measurement uncertainty in the model input variables and residual uncertainty. Recommendations were made on how uncertainties can be reduced by prioritizing methodological and data collection improvements in these areas. The effects of uncertainties on climate change mitigation strategies and methods to incorporate uncertainty information into climate change policies were assessed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".