MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1752215623 · doi:10.22230/jem.2008v9n1a384

Evaluation of a mature lodgepole pine stand's resistance to the current mountain pine beetle infestation after nitrogen fertilization

2008· article· en· W1752215623 on OpenAlexaff
D. B. Jack, J. A. McLean, G. F. Weetman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ecosystems and Management · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMountain pine beetleInfestationPinus contortaBiologyHuman fertilizationNitrogenPhloemBotanyAgronomyEcologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research is currently under way in the Southern Interior Forest Region to determine whether nitrogen fertilization can be used to increase mature lodgepole pine trees' natural defences against the mountain pine beetle (MPB) and thereby reduce the impact of the mpb infestation in pine stands. In fall 2006, three nitrogen fertilizer treatments (0, 200, and 400 kg N/ha) were applied randomly to each of 10 plots in a 140-year-old fire-regenerated stand of mixed lodgepole pine, spruce, and true fir. In 2007, the stand was inoculated with two isolates of blue stain fungus and with local beetle microflora. A forest health survey helped determine the level of MPB within the stand before the plot centres were baited with pheromones. Early results show that the 400 kg N/ha treatment significantly increased nitrogen levels in pine phloem and needles. No significant differences were apparent in lesion length related to nitrogen treatment levels within each of the three fungal isolates. Measurements in 2008 will show whether MPB attack success varies among nitrogen treatments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Ecosystems and ManagementSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207