Influence of plant-hardiness zone, shoot length, and crown class on the incidence of gouting by the balsam woolly adelgid on balsam fir
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We collected midcrown branches of balsam fir, Abies balsamea (L.) Mill. (Pinaceae), at six different sites located in five different plant-hardiness zones, along a north–south transect in New Brunswick, Canada, to evaluate the effect of plant-hardiness zone, crown class (overstory versus understory), and shoot length during the previous 10 years on the annual incidence of gouting by the balsam woolly adelgid, Adelges piceae (Ratzeburg) (Homoptera: Adelgidae). Site, crown class, and their interaction, along with the square of shoot length, explained 78% of the variation in gouting. Variations in gouting attributed to plant-hardiness zone were probably primarily due to variation in mean January temperature: at each site, the mean January temperature was positively and closely related to the mean level of gouting. The level of gouting was consistently higher on trees in the understory than on those in the overstory. Shoot length was parabolically related to the proportion of shoots with gout. The parabolic relationship between shoot size and the level of gouting is similar to that previously reported for galling adelgids, and suggests that gouting by A. piceae may be greatest on trees with an intermediate growth rate.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".