MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119534554 · doi:10.22230/jem.2006v7n2a538

Rate of deterioration, degrade, and fall of trees killed by mountain pine beetle

2006· article· en· W2119534554 on OpenAlex
Kathy J. Lewis, Ian D. Hartley

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ecosystems and Management · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceNatural Resources CanadaU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsMountain pine beetleDendroctonusPinus contortaEnvironmental scienceForestryEcologyBark beetleBiologyGeographyBark (sound)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The information presented in this paper results from a review of published articles on deterioration of dead wood, and interviews of people with forestry and (or) mill experience from the 1980s Cariboo Plateau mountain pine beetle outbreak. The literature review focussed on mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm.), but also included papers on other conifer species. Most of the existing research has focussed on utilization of trees that have been dead for less than 5 years. The general conclusion was that reduced moisture content, checking (related to moisture content), and bluestain were the most important factors involved in loss of product opportunities and quality. Decay of standing pine was slow (at least in the regions studied), and trees were more likely to fall over before significant losses of wood volume due to decay fungi. Once trees were on the ground, decay rates accelerated substantially.

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.

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 score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.169 · 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