MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076275393 · doi:10.5849/sjaf.11-029

A Sequential Sampling Plan for Counts of <I>Adelges tsugae</I> on Individual Eastern Hemlock Trees

2013· article· en· W2076275393 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey G. Fidgen, David E. Legg, Scott M. Salom

Bibliographic record

VenueSouthern Journal of Applied Forestry · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
FundersU.S. Forest ServiceU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsSampling (signal processing)InfestationForestryBiologyCrown (dentistry)StatisticsEcologyGeographyMathematicsBotanyMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A sequential sampling plan was developed to estimate density of sistens of the invasive exotic hemlock woolly adelgid, Adelges tsugae (Annand), by counting adelgids on new shoots of four branch tips sampled from the lower half of the live crown of individual, asymptomatic eastern hemlock trees. The y-intercepts and slopes for the relationship between observed mean and variance of A. tsugae counts were similar for North Carolina and for 2 years of data collected from Virginia; thus, data were pooled to create one regression equation that was used to develop a count-based sequential sampling plan. Validation data sets were obtained in West Virginia and by randomly selecting half of the trees sampled in North Carolina and Virginia, trees not used previously to develop the sampling plan. Validation of the combined North Carolina–Virginia sampling plan showed that the model performed as specified. This plan should allow for estimation of adelgid population changes on a tree over time, provided the tree has not declined due to A. tsugae infestation. This plan can also be used to assess chemical or biological treatment effects on A. tsugae, provided such treatments do not fundamentally alter the mean–variance relationship.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.227
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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSouthern Journal of Applied ForestrySame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207