MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Distribution and survival of overwintering adults of the Dutch elm disease vector, <i>Hylurgopinus rufipes</i> (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), in American elm trees in Manitoba

2003· article· en· W1991495828 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Patricia L. Anderson, N. J. Holliday

Bibliographic record

VenueAgricultural and Forest Entomology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsOverwinteringBiologyBark (sound)Range (aeronautics)Dutch elm diseaseBark beetleBionomicsEcologyBotanyLarva

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract 1 The native elm bark beetle, Hylurgopinus rufipes , is the principal vector of Dutch elm disease in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and North Dakota, and disease management measures include applying residual insecticides to the lower part of elm tree trunks where the adult beetles overwinter. 2 In American elm trees in southern Manitoba, we counted entrance holes produced by beetles then felled and dissected trees to determine numbers of tunnels and numbers and survival of overwintering beetles. 3 Densities of entrance holes, tunnels and beetles followed a logistic relationship with tree trunk diameter; densities were near zero at diameters &lt; 10 cm and reached a site‐specific asymptote at diameters &gt; 20 cm. 4 Asymptotic densities of holes, tunnels and beetles in samples from 55 to 190 cm above the ground were, respectively, 22%, 22% and 0.7% of those within 25 cm of the ground. 5 Within the height range 0–190 cm, the proportion of living beetles declined steeply with increasing height. 6 Average density of holes at height 0–25 cm estimated from a sample of several trees of diameter ≥15 cm could be used to predict the asymptotic maximum density of overwintering beetles in the site; predictions of beetle densities for individual trees were not reliable.

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)0.000
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 score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.915

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations12
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgricultural and Forest EntomologySame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207