MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129414065 · doi:10.4039/n09-013

Sampling plan for <i>Adelges cooleyi</i> (Hemiptera: Adelgidae) in spruce seed orchards

2010· article· en· W2129414065 on OpenAlexaff
Ward B. Strong, Robert G. Bennett

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Entomologist · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHemiptera Insect Studies
Canadian institutionsGovernment of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShootCrown (dentistry)BiologySampling (signal processing)PinaceaeBotanyHorticultureForestryPicea engelmanniiGeographyPinus <genus>Pinus contorta

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Within-plant and between-plants distributions of the Cooley spruce gall adelgid, Adelges cooleyi (Gillette), fundatrices were measured in “interior spruce”, Picea glauca × P. engelmannii (Moench) Voss. &amp; Parry (Pinaceae), seed orchards in central British Columbia to develop a quantitative sampling plan. Adelgids (number of fundatrices per shoot) were abundant at the lower and middle crown heights of the tree crowns but scarce at the upper crown height, and more abundant on the ends and central one-third of branches than on the inner portions. The northern and eastern aspects of trees had slightly but significantly more adelgids than did the southern and western aspects, and terminal shoots had more adelgids than did distolateral shoots. Variance was much greater between than within trees. These data were used to create a sampling plan with a sample unit consisting of a single 1-year-old shoot selected from the ends or central area of main branches in the lower or middle portion of each sample tree. Collecting 104 samples required 69 min, and yielded an estimate of the mean number of fundatrices per shoot with a standard error of 10% of the mean.

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)0.001
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 score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score0.731

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian EntomologistSame topicHemiptera Insect StudiesFrench-language works237,207