Susceptibility of pine plantations to attack by the pine shoot beetle (<i>Tomicus piniperda</i>) in southern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pine shoot beetle, Tomicus piniperda (L.) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), was first discovered in North America in 1992, and by the late 1990s it was associated with tree mortality and stand decline throughout southern Ontario. To assess whether this beetle was capable of killing vigorous trees (a primary pest) or would kill only trees already stressed (a secondary pest), we surveyed 43 sites of varying Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.), red pine (Pinus resinosa Ait.), and jack pine (Pinus banksiana Lamb.) composition. Specifically, our objective was to determine the relationship between tree and site characteristics and the number of stem and shoot attacks by T. piniperda in southern Ontario. An abundance of recently dead and low-vigour pine trees increased susceptibility of sites to stem and shoot attacks by T. piniperda. Significant negative linear relationships were detected between the number of beetle attacks and the mean height, age, diameter at breast height, basal area, canopy cover, duff depth, and radial growth increments. Pure red pine sites had significantly fewer attacks than sites of pure Scots pine and mixed jack pine, which was attributed to differences in tree vigour and forest management. Tomicus piniperda appears to be a secondary bark beetle in southern Ontario, successfully colonizing only recently dead pine trees or trees suffering from stress.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".