Biomass Estimation Errors Associated with the Use of Published Regression Equations of Paper Birch and Trembling Aspen
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Since forest biomass contributes a significant proportion of global carbon cycle, obtaining accurate estimate of forest biomass is important. The root mean squared error (RMSE), the percents of the mean observed values were used to compare the precision of local and published biomass equations for paper birch and trembling aspen. With the exception of stemwood biomass equations, the biomass equations for these two species tended to be stand specific. Measured as percent of mean observed values, the values of biomass/tree predicted from the published equations for paper birch varied from 49.9% to 140.2% for foliage and from 155% to 238.7% for live branches; the estimates for trembling aspen ranged from 71.8% to 81.3% for foliage and from 55.3% to 164.5% for live branches. There were large discrepancies between the measured data and the published equations in graphical form as well as biomass estimates, particularly for foliage, live branches, and stembark. Clearly, published regression equations should be checked for their applicability before they are used to estimate the biomass of particular stands.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it