An exploration of ringbarking to reduce the severity of Armillaria root disease in logged areas in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ringbarking is a girdling technique that is used prior to timber harvesting to reduce losses to Armillaria root disease in some parts of the world. The technique had not previously been evaluated in British Columbia, Canada. Small plots of primarily Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) trees that were ringbarked prior to timber harvesting had approximately 50% lower levels of Armillaria root disease caused tree mortality in young trees after 15 years than plots of trees that were not ringbarked. Ringbarking did not reduce Armillaria root disease in this trial as much as has been reported in other research. This could be attributable to the centre of the small plots being within 5–10 m of live and dead Armillaria-infected trees in the surrounding forest. The treatment did reduce the severity of the disease by both statistically and biologically significant amounts and, therefore, warrants further investigation as a possible treatment where timber harvesting is conducted in Armillaria root disease affected 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".