MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002472299 · doi:10.1139/x05-081

Growth response of spruce infected by <i>Inonotus tomentosus</i> in Alaska and interactions with spruce beetle

2005· article· en· W2002472299 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kathy J. Lewis, Ricky Thompson, Lori Trummer

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsBiologyBotanyBlack spruceWilt diseaseHorticultureEcologyTaiga

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thirty-eight trees from Alaska's Kenai Peninsula and 39 from the interior near Fairbanks (Delta Junction) were sampled by detailed stem dissections to determine the impact of tomentosus root disease [Inonotus tomentosus (Fr.: Fr.) S. Teng] on growth and decay volume in spruce, with and without the influence of past spruce beetle activity in stands. Disease severity was assessed by the number of primary roots (out of four) infected and by the average proportion of root cross-section area colonized by stain and (or) decay. Butt rot volumes were positively related to disease severity at both locations, but only the Delta Junction trees showed a significant negative relationship between relative volume increment and disease severity. Substantial mortality of spruce, caused by the spruce beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis (Kirby)), has occurred on the Kenai Peninsula since the late 1970s. Mortality of overstory spruce trees released surviving trees from competition, causing compensatory growth in healthy to moderately infected trees, which masked the effect of the root disease. We found that the magnitude of growth release was negatively related to disease severity and that the mean proportion of root cross-section with decay or stain was a better estimator of disease impact on tree growth.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations3
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207