Predicting survival of lodgepole pine stands infected with western gall rust
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The probability of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud.) having main-stem galls caused by western gall rust, Endocronartium harknessii (J.P. Moore) Y. Hiratsuka, surviving to rotation is unknown. To evaluate survival, 400 galled trees with at least one stem gall and 400 trees without stem galls were measured in 1992 in two precommercially thinned stands approximately 20 years old. The survival of trees was assessed in 2003. Nonlinear regression using iteratively reweighted least squares was employed to estimate the survival of galled trees as a function of the proportion of the main stem encircled by galls. Galls encircling >79% and >91% of the stem in the two stands increased the risk of mortality relative to non-galled trees, with the risk increasing steeply with percent gall encirclement; smaller stem galls did not cause tree mortality. The 11-year pattern of survival of galled trees was similar for infections that occurred on the main stem and those that had reached the stem from a nearby branch infection. Based on an earlier model of gall expansion, 38%–43% of stem-galled trees would be expected to survive until age 80. Scribing of stem galls to prevent their expansion does not appear to be a feasible management strategy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".