Comparison of Armillaria root disease on burned and unburned, harvested sites in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Averages of 10, 10, 0 and 4% of white spruce, black spruce, balsam fir and jack pine saplings were killed by Armillaria Root Disease (ARD), after 10 years following planting around 50 infected stumps that had been prescribed burned. Comparable averages on an unburned control area of 8, 8, 0 and 6% were not significantly different from the burned area. ARD did not occur in any trees planted adjacent to five deeply burned stumps. However, no statistically significant relationship was found between ARD and intensity of burn on stumps. Significantly (p = .05) fewer balsam fir saplings were killed by ARD than of either white or black spruce. Jack pine heights were significantly greater (p = .05) than those of the other species on both locations after10 years, and on the unburned site after 17 years (experimental trees on the burned site were inadvertently cut during a silvicultural thinning in the year prior to measurements in the 17th year). Balsam fir heights were significantly less (p = .05) than those of the other three species on both sites after 10 years, and after 17 years on the unburned site. Key words: Root rot, Armillaria, burning, height growth, spruce, balsam fir, jack pine
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".