MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047158819 · doi:10.1139/x02-049

Whitebark pine and white pine blister rust in British Columbia, Canada

2002· article· en· W2047158819 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Stefan Zeglen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbies lasiocarpaBiologyDendroctonusMountain pine beetleForestryPinus contortaBotanyBark (sound)EcologyBark beetleGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A survey of the health of whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis Engelm.) was conducted throughout its range in British Columbia, Canada. Over 3 years, 24 070 trees were examined for mortality, incidence of white pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola J.C. Fisch.), or other damage. About 19% of whitebark pine (>1.3 m in height) were dead, and another 31% had active blister rust infections. Tests of relationships between the proportion of healthy, infected, or dead trees and elevation, latitude, and longitude produced mixed results. The ratio of healthy to infected whitebark pine varies considerably across the province, with a trend of increasing incidence from west to east. Losses to mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins) proved minor, but bark stripping by mammals was common. Whitebark pine seedlings (<1.3 m in height) revealed lower rates of mortality (11%) and rust infection (4%) than larger trees. However, the pioneer species whitebark pine was found in less than half the regeneration plots and was usually outnumbered by subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt.). The combination of mature tree mortality, lack of suitable substrate for regeneration, and the incursion of climax species indicates a continued decline in whitebark pine populations in British Columbia.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations60
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207