MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111815326 · doi:10.5558/tfc2015-008

A risk analysis framework for forest pest management

2015· article· en· W2111815326 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Vincent G. Nealis

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Environmental resource managementIntegrated pest managementPEST analysisForest managementBusinessGeographyEnvironmental planningAlien speciesAgroforestryInvasive speciesEcologyForestryBiologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A risk analysis framework comprised of assessment, response and communication elements is discussed in the context of forest pest management in Canada. Despite many shared pests and common issues in resource management, capacity in forest pest management varies greatly by jurisdictions depending on historical, socio-economic and cultural expectations. Research and operational expertise is separated among jurisdictions as is responsibility for native and alien pests. A risk analysis framework provides a structure for the development of common evidence-based analysis, harmonized responses and best practices. Two case studies: mountain pine beetle, a native insect, and gypsy moth, an alien invasive insect, are presented to illustrate the process.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207