MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122174030 · doi:10.1139/x2012-103

Differential persistence of blue ash and white ash following emerald ash borer invasion

2012· article· en· W2122174030 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sara R. Tanis, Deborah G. McCullough

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsEmerald ash borerAgrilusFraxinusBiologyBuprestidaeOleaceaeBotanyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Catastrophic mortality of North American ash ( Fraxinus spp.) caused by Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire has been attributed to the lack of coevolved resistance between native ash species and this Asian invader. Although A. planipennis host preference or tree resistance can vary, all North American ash species are presumably highly vulnerable to A. planipennis. We inventoried live and dead blue ash ( Fraxinus quadrangulata Michx.) and white ash ( Fraxinus americana L.) in two southeastern Michigan woodlots several years after the A. planipennis invasion to assess their survival. Agrilus planipennis populations in this area peaked in approximately 2005, and the region is now characterized by nearly complete ash mortality. At the Plymouth site, 71% of the original 380 blue ash were alive, whereas only 29 saplings of the original 187 white ash were alive. At the Superior Township site, 63% of the original 210 blue ash were living, whereas all 125 white ash were dead. More than 80% of the blue ash had evidence of previous A. planipennis colonization, but 87% appeared healthy in 2011. Tree diameter did not consistently affect survival, and live and dead trees of both species were distributed across sites, indicating that differential survival was not attributable to localized conditions.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations97
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207