MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119668913 · doi:10.5558/tfc83393-3

Tree species of concern in New Brunswick, Canada. I. Current status and threats

2007· article· en· W2119668913 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Judy Loo, Tannis Beardmore, J. Dale Simpson, Donnie McPhee

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant and Fungal Interactions Research
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceNatural Resources CanadaU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsThreatened speciesBeechBiologyGeographyEcologyConservation statusHabitatForestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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 score0.764
Threshold uncertainty score0.836

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicPlant and Fungal Interactions ResearchFrench-language works237,207