MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044366362 · doi:10.2980/20-3-3599

Topographic influences on the distribution of white pine blister rust in <i>Pinus albicaulis</i> treeline communities

2013· article· en· W2044366362 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Emily K. Smith-McKenna, Lynn M. Resler, Diana F. Tomback, Huaiye Zhang, George P. Malanson

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Pathogens and Resistance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRocky Mountain Research StationUniversity of Colorado DenverUniversity of DenverNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEcologyRust (programming language)Abies lasiocarpaForestryPinus contortaBiologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The exotic disease white pine blister rust (caused by Cronartium ribicola) damages and kills whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis), even in the extreme environments of alpine treeline communities. We surveyed P. albicaulis trees and tree islands for blister rust in 2 distinct alpine treeline communities in Montana, USA, and examined meso- and microtopographic factors potentially related to the climatic requirements for blister rust infection. For each of 60 sampling plots, we created high-resolution digital elevation models, derived microtopography variables, and compared these and distance to water feature variables with blister rust occurrence and intensity (number of cankers per infected tree) for every sampled P. albicaulis tree. Infection rates were 19% (of 328 sampled trees) and 24% (of 585 sampled trees) at the 2 sites. Tree island P. albicaulis had higher infection percentages than solitary trees. Using Bayesian analysis and a zero-inflated Poisson regression model, we determined that solar radiation and moisture-related variables correlated with both presence and number of blister rust cankers on P. albicaulis. Site factors that influence moisture, such as local topography, hydrology, and climate, differed between the 2 treeline study areas, which may account for the model variability.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.649
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.197
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations25
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcoscienceSame topicPlant Pathogens and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207