MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969066106 · doi:10.1139/x07-174

Basal area growth impacts of dwarf mistletoe on western hemlock in an old-growth forest

2008· article· en· W1969066106 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David C. Shaw, Manuela Huso, Howard Bruner

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Parasitism and Resistance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBasal areaTsugaWestern HemlockBiologyDiameter at breast heightHorticultureRandomized block designBotanyOld-growth forestForestryBasal (medicine)Animal scienceEcologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated the effect of western hemlock dwarf mistletoe ( Arceuthobium tsugense (Rosend.) G.N. Jones ssp. tsugense ) on the 13 year basal area growth of large (>45.7 cm diameter at breast height) western hemlock ( Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.) trees in an old-growth forest in southwestern Washington state. We controlled for spatial effects on tree growth by utilizing twenty-seven 0.4 ha plots that had uninfected, lightly, moderately, and severely infected classes of trees present on each plot. Basal area growth was analyzed using analysis of covariance of a randomized block design that was a balanced design with four treatments (infection classes) and 27 replicates (blocks or 0.4 ha plots), with initial diameter as the covariate. Basal area growth was found to be significantly different among the infection classes (F [3,77] = 10.09 and p < 0.0001). Growth of the light and moderate infection classes was not detectably different from growth of uninfected trees. However, severely infected trees grew from 16% to 46% (mean = 36%) less than uninfected trees of the same initial diameter over the period of study (1991–2004). The large trees in this stand did not show growth impacts until they were severely infected.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.721
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations24
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicPlant Parasitism and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207