Tree-ring evidence of larch sawfly outbreaks in western Labrador, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As many insect outbreak reconstructions are typically based on targeted single-site sampling, researchers have often been limited in their ability to draw conclusions about regional trends as opposed to local trends in the data. The results of this paper demonstrate the value of a systematic sampling design when studying spatio-temporal processes that can vary greatly within large continuous areas of forest. Many single-site research programs have been conducted to reconstruct the history of larch sawfly ( Pristiphora erichsonii Htg.) outbreaks in the eastern boreal region of North America. However, no such research has yet been conducted in the region of Labrador. In an attempt to illustrate the strength of a systematic gridded sampling protocol over a single-site study, we sampled a 12-site grid in western Labrador. Dominant and codominant species were sampled at each grid point, resulting in 24 master chronologies. Six eastern larch ( Larix laricina (Du Roi) K. Koch) chronologies (host) and a regional black spruce ( Picea mariana (Mill.) Britton, Sterns, Poggenb.) chronology (nonhost) were used to establish a host–nonhost analysis of past sawfly outbreaks on a regional scale. Both regional and localized larch sawfly outbreaks were identified, but in general, larch sawfly outbreaks in western Labrador appeared to be spatially synchronous and regional in scale.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".