Retrospective evaluation of the onset period of the visual symptoms of dieback in five Appalachian sugar maple stand types
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the early 1980s, a sharp increase in dieback of sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.) was reported across large areas of the north-eastern American continent. Despite numerous studies, there are conflicting interpretations as to the causes of dieback that can be linked to uncertainties as to when the occurrence of the visual symptoms appeared. Three different approaches were used to determine the onset period of the visual symptoms of dieback in Appalachian sugar maple stands: (1) dendrochronological analysis; (2) retrieval of information in official documents that reported dieback symptoms; and (3) development of a questionnaire sent to private forest land owners. Dieback severity was evaluated annually in 104 Appalachian sugar maple stands in southwestern Quebec. Results indicated that the pattern of dieback progression did not vary significantly among the five different types of sugar maple stand that were examined. The three investigative approaches led to the conclusion that the onset of the visual symptoms occurred between 1974 and 1978. Key words: Acer saccharum Marsh., dieback, sugar maple, symptoms, progression
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 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".