MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109115965 · doi:10.5558/tfc80485-4

Spatial prediction of the onset of spruce budworm defoliation

2004· article· en· W2109115965 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Steen Magnussen, Paul Boudewyn, René I. Alfaro

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpruce budwormChoristoneura fumiferanaForestryTortricidaeBiomass (ecology)Environmental scienceLogistic regressionElevation (ballistics)OutbreakEcologyGeographyBiologyLepidoptera genitaliaStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A logistic regression model for spatially explicit predictions of the likelihood of an onset of stand-level spruce budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana, Clemens) defoliation in a 15 000 km 2 study area in northern British Columbia, Canada is developed. Predictions are derived from stand (volume and needle biomass) and topographic attributes (distance from nearest river, distance from previous year defoliation, and stand elevation) collected during the first 12 years of a current budworm outbreak. The likelihood of an onset of defoliation increased with an increase in stand volume and biomass of current needles and it decreased with an increase in the distance to the nearest river and to the nearest stand with a defoliation recorded for the year prior to the year of prediction. Stands located at higher elevations sustained less defoliation than stands located at lower elevations. A single model is assumed adequate for predictions throughout an entire outbreak cycle. Observed and predicted relative frequencies of locations with an onset of defoliation compared relatively well. Key words: Choristoneura fumiferana; Picea; logistic regression; nearest neighbour distance

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 score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations29
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207