MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W211949252 · doi:10.48044/jauf.2008.015

A Mark-recapture Technique for the Dutch Elm Disease Vector the Native Elm Bark Beetle, Hylurgopinus rufipes (Coleoptera: Scolytidae)

2008· article· en· W211949252 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Irene Pines, Richard Westwood

Bibliographic record

VenueArboriculture & Urban Forestry · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDutch elm diseaseOverwinteringBark beetleBark (sound)BiologySpring (device)Vector (molecular biology)EcologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Six mark-recapture experiments were conducted in Manitoba, Canada, to determine the effectiveness of fluorescent powder to mark emerging native elm bark beetle adults, Hylurgopinus rufipes (Eichoff) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), the vector of Dutch elm disease, Ophiostoma novo-ulmi (Brazier), after departure from overwintering sites in spring and emergence from broodwood in summer. Native elm bark beetles marked themselves on emergence from overwintering sites and summer trap logs. The spring and summer periods of flight activity for unmarked and marked beetles were similar. Marked beetles were captured over 1 month after peak emergence in the spring and 2 months after emergence from trap logs in the summer. Marked beetles were captured up to 1 km (0.6 mi) from release sites. Where integrated Dutch elm disease management activities are implemented in buffer zones to minimize the number of elm bark beetles entering community urban forests, buffer zones should be a minimum of 1 km (0.6 mi) in width.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArboriculture & Urban ForestrySame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207