MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059556290 · doi:10.5558/tfc77605-4

Decay, stains, and beetles in ice-storm-damaged forests: A review

2001· review· en· W2059556290 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTree Root and Stability Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityOntario Forest Research InstituteCanadian Forest Service
FundersGovernment of CanadaGovernment of Ontario
KeywordsBuprestidaeLonghorn beetleBiologyBotanyInfestationSnagBark (sound)CanopyChamaecyparisFungusEcologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A potential long-term threat to ice-damaged forests exists from decays, stains, and wood-boring insects. Damage to large branches or to the main stem can result in heartwood decay, particularly in older or less healthy trees. However, in branch stubs with a diameter of less than 7.5 cm, decay progresses to only a limited degree. Stem damage is not usual after ice storms. However, sunscald is common in sugar maple stands with damaged crowns, sometimes resulting in infection by the sap rot fungus Cerrena unicolor. Fungi of the genera Ophiostoma, Ceratocystis and Ceratocystiopsis (blue stains) can cause significant staining to standing timber in damaged softwood stands; however, these fungi do not cause structural damage. Bark beetles (scolytidae) and wood-borers (buprestidae and cerambycidae), which attack damaged trees in northeastern North America are normally secondary invaders. However, thinning of the canopy from ice damage could cause increased infestation by these insects. Key words: ice storm, decay, fungi, beetle

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.259 · 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