MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136945680 · doi:10.1139/x06-270

Impact of simulated aspen shoot blight on trembling aspen

2007· article· en· W2136945680 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Peter V. Blenis

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBioenergy crop production and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShootGrowing seasonSalicaceaeBlightBiologyWoody plantHorticultureBotanyForestryAgronomyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although aspen shoot blight (ASB), caused by Pollaccia americana Ondrej, is a common disease of trembling aspen ( Populus tremuloides Michx.), its impact is uncertain. Mechanical wounding, previously shown to be a reliable surrogate for ASB infection, was used to assess ASB impact in two experiments. In the first experiment, the effect of date of wounding on impact was studied by wounding 1-year-old aspen on four dates between 29 June and 10 August 2001. Tree form at the end of the 2001 growing season varied with wounding date, and for each of the wounding dates, tree height was reduced relative to that of unwounded, control trees. After the 2005 growing season, only trees wounded on 17 July were shorter than unwounded trees and the difference in heights was only 62 cm. In the second experiment, trees spaced at 2.0 or 0.67 m were wounded in four successive seasons to determine the effect of multiple years of infection on trees growing at different densities. Simulated ASB reduced tree height by an average of 16 cm, whereas branchiness was not increased by ASB, even at the lower density. Although ASB should not be ignored, these results suggest that it is unlikely to be amongst the most destructive pests of intensively managed aspen.

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)0.000
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 score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicBioenergy crop production and managementFrench-language works237,207