Tree species of concern in New Brunswick, Canada. I. Current status and threats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A process was developed by the New Brunswick Forest Gene Conservation Working Group to identify conservation needs for native tree species in New Brunswick. A multi-stakeholder, consensus-based, expert opinion process was employed to formulate a set of criteria and a rating system, which were then applied to identify tree species in New Brunswick requiring conservation attention at the genetic level. Known or presumed alien invasive insect or fungus species threaten three of these species: butternut (Juglans cinerea), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), and white elm (Ulmus americana). The fourth species, bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa)—with only a few remaining populations in the province—is threatened primarily by land development. Knowledge of the level, type, and pattern of genetic variability differs widely, depending on the species. Only American beech is naturally broadly distributed in the province. The distribution of the other three species is limited by their specific habitat requirements, and contributes to their vulnerability to new threats. Key words: American beech, bur oak, butternut, criteria, gene conservation, genetic variability, species status, threats, vulnerability, white elm
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".