MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The dynamics of forest tent caterpillar outbreaks across east‐central Canada

2011· article· en· W2050921195 on OpenAlexaffabout
Barry J. Cooke, Chris J.K. MacQuarrie, François Lorenzetti

Bibliographic record

VenueEcography · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcologyGeographyCaterpillarOutbreakBiologyLepidoptera genitalia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An analysis of forest tent caterpillar Malacosoma disstria defoliation records from Ontario and Quebec over the period 1938–2002 indicates that outbreaks recur periodically and somewhat synchronously among regions of the two provinces. Cluster analysis revealed that the most strongly periodic, large‐scale, synchronized fluctuations occurred within three regions: northwestern Ontario, eastern Ontario/western Quebec and southeastern Quebec. Defoliation in the vast surrounding hinterlands tended to be infrequent and sporadic, loosely tracking defoliation in the core outbreak regions. One small cluster in northeastern Ontario stood out as anomalous, as a result of an increasing trend in the duration of periodic defoliation episodes, marked by an unprecedented double‐wave of defoliation that persisted from 1992 to 1999. This is the precise area where, in the early 2000s, trembling aspen Populus tremuloides stems were mapped as being in a state of decline of unprecedented severity and extent. Our results suggest forest tent caterpillar has the potential to cause significant impacts on forest health and, hence, carbon budgets in east‐central Canada and that the forest tent caterpillar deserves more attention as a model system of forest insect disturbance ecology.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations40
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcographySame topicAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207