MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131795115 · doi:10.3390/f6103483

Impact of a Mountain Pine Beetle Outbreak on Young Lodgepole Pine Stands in Central British Columbia

2015· article· en· W2131795115 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Amalesh Dhar, Nicole Balliet, K. Runzer, Christopher Hawkins

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsYukon UniversityUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Forest Service
KeywordsMountain pine beetleOutbreakPinus contortaForestryGeographyWoody plantSilvicultureAgroforestryEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current mountain pine beetle (MPB) (Dendroctonous ponderosae Hopkins) epidemic has severely affected pine forests of Western Canada and killed millions of hectares of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm.) forest. Generally, MPB attack larger and older (diameter > 20 cm or >60 years of age) trees, but the current epidemic extends this limit with attacks on even younger and smaller trees. The study’s aim was to investigate the extent of MPB attack in young pine stands and its possible impact on stand dynamics. Although MPB attacks were observed in trees as small as 7.5 cm diameter at breast height (DBH) and as young as 13 years old, the degree of MPB attack (percent stems ha−1) increased with increasing tree diameter and age class (13–20, 21–40, 41–60, and 61–80 years old) (6.4%, 49.4%, 62.6%, and 69.5% attack, respectively, by age class) which is greater than that reported from previous epidemics for stands of this age. The mean density of surviving residual structure varied widely among age classes and ecological subzones. Depending on age class, 65% to 77% of the attacked stands could contribute to mid-term timber supply. The surviving residual structure of young stands offers an opportunity to mitigate the effects of MPB-attack on future timber supply, increase age class diversity, and enhance ecological resilience in younger stands.

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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207