MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007633911 · doi:10.1139/x11-134

Forecasting the response of spruce budworm defoliation to climate change in Ontario

2011· article· en· W2007633911 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jean‐Noël Candau, Richard A. Fleming

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpruce budwormAbies balsameaChoristoneura fumiferanaBalsamClimate changeEnvironmental scienceForestrySpatial distributionThinningEcologyGeographyAgronomyTortricidaeAgroforestryBiologyBotanyLepidoptera genitalia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predicting the effect of climate change on insect populations is critical to improve the reliability of forest management plans, wood supply projections, and pest protection programs. In this study, we use an empirical model to relate the spatial distribution of past defoliation by spruce budworm ( Choristoneura fumiferana Clem.) in Ontario to bioclimatic variables. We then apply data from six climate change scenarios to this model to project potential changes in the distribution of defoliation for 2011–2040. The spatial distribution of historical defoliation was found to be related to winter maximum and minimum temperatures, forest content in balsam fir ( Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.) and white spruce ( Picea glauca (Moench) Voss), and spring and summer minimum temperatures. All six climate change scenarios project broadly similar changes in the spatial patterns of defoliation: (i) an extension of the northern limit of defoliation as far as available data go or close to it, (ii) a decrease in the frequency of defoliation in the center of the historical defoliation belt, and (iii) a persistence of the southern limit of defoliation. This leads to a projected increase of the total area defoliated of between 22.8% and 25.5%, while the mean frequency of defoliation, calculated over the whole study area, would slightly increase (+1%) or decrease (–17.7% to –2.9%).

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.663

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.294
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

Citations60
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207