MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091572697 · doi:10.1186/1753-6561-5-s7-o29

Influence of water deficit on the induced and constitutive responses of pines to infection by mountain pine beetle fungal associates

2011· article· en· W2091572697 on OpenAlexaffabout
Adriana Arango‐Velez, Miranda J. Meents, Jean Linsky, Walid El Kayal, Eri Adams, Leonardo Galindo‐González, Janice E. K. Cooke

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Proceedings · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMountain pine beetleHorticultureBotanyEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ongoing outbreak of mountain pine beetle (MPB; Dendroctonus ponderasae Hopkins) and its associated pathogenic fungi (e.g.Grosmannia clavigera [Robinson-Jeffrey and Davidson] Zipfel, de Beer and Wingfield) in western North America has resulted in the loss of more than 13 million hectares of pines since 1999 in British Columbia alone [1].MPB has principally attacked lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl.ex Loud.var.latifolia) in British Columbia.However, since 2006 MPB has spread into northern Alberta, where lodgepole pine hybridizes with jack pine (Pinus banksiana Lamb.) [2].Few studies have compared lodgepole and jack pine defense responses, but given that lodgepole pine and MPB share a co-evolutionary history [1] whereas jack pine is a new host for MPB [2], it is reasonable to expect that differences might exist.Some regions affected by the current outbreak have experienced drought conditions during the last decade.Water deficit can limit carbon assimilation, potentially increasing tree susceptibility to MPB and their symbiotic fungi [3].We are testing the hypotheses that lodgepole and jack pine defenses against MPB and G. clavigera differ, and that water deficit affects these responses.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC ProceedingsSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207