MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2029524928 · doi:10.1139/x10-104

Spruce budworm and management effects on forest and wood product carbon for an intensively managed forest

2010· article· en· W2029524928 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Chris R. Hennigar, David A. MacLean

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpruce budwormChoristoneura fumiferanaForest managementEnvironmental scienceForestryForest productAgroforestryForest inventoryPEST analysisTortricidaeBiologyGeographyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An integrated forest management optimization model was developed to calculate potential spruce budworm ( Choristoneura fumiferana Clemens) effects on forest and wood product carbon (C) from 2007 to 2057 and to evaluate potential C sequestration benefits of alternative management strategies (salvage, biological insecticide application). The model was tested using simulated spruce budworm outbreaks on a 210 000 ha intensively managed forest in northwestern New Brunswick, Canada. Under a severe spruce budworm outbreak scenario from 2007 to 2020, harvest volume and forest and wood product C storage in 2027 were projected to be reduced by 1.34 Mm3, 1.48 Mt, and 0.26 Mt, respectively, compared with the levels under no defoliation. Under the same severe outbreak scenario, implementation of salvage and harvest replanning plus a biological insecticide applied aerially to 40% of susceptible forest area, reduced harvest, forest C, and wood product C impacts by 73%, 41%, and 56%, respectively. Extrapolation of these results to all of New Brunswick suggests that a future severe spruce budworm outbreak could effectively increase total provincial annual C emissions (all sources) by up to 40%, on average, over the next 20 years. This modeling approach can be used to identify to what extent insecticide application, as a forest-C-offset project, could result in additional C storage than without forest and pest management.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.524
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations44
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→