MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129980173 · doi:10.1080/09670874.2010.505667

Estimates of bark beetle infestation expansion factors with adaptive cluster sampling

2010· article· en· W2129980173 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sam Coggins, Nicholas C. Coops, Michael A. Wulder

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Pest Management · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest ServiceWestern Forest ProductsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsInfestationHectarePEST analysisBiologySampling (signal processing)Mountain pine beetleForestryEcologyAgronomyGeographyHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Insects have infested over 37 million hectares of forested land, the most aggressive forest insect pest in North America is the mountain pine beetle that has attacked 14 million hectares. To determine infestation extent and spread rates, we examined mountain pine beetle damage at two sites over two consecutive years (2007–2008). High spatial resolution (20 cm) airborne digital imagery was acquired over a range of infestation intensities (High: site A; Low: site B). An adaptive cluster sampling approach assessed the extent and severity of damage from the imagery. In 2007, site A contained 5.22 infested trees per hectare (variance: 10.65) increasing in 2008 to 11.02 trees per hectare (variance: 24.83). In contrast, site B had 0.25 infested trees per hectare in 2007 (variance: 0.02), which increased in 2008 to 0.47 trees per hectare, with a variance of 0.08 trees per hectare. At both sites, infestations approximately doubled over a 1-year period. Adaptive cluster sampling applied to high spatial resolution airborne imagery can provide estimates of the severity of attack on the landscape.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations15
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Pest ManagementSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207