MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089589223 · doi:10.1139/x10-091

Tree-ring evidence of larch sawfly outbreaks in western Labrador, Canada

2010· article· en· W2089589223 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Peter Nishimura, Colin P. Laroque

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTree-ring climate responses
Canadian institutionsMount Allison University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSawflyLarchBlack spruceOutbreakGeographyTaigaEcologyDendrochronologySampling (signal processing)ForestryBiologyArchaeologyLarva

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations14
Published2010
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicTree-ring climate responsesFrench-language works237,207