The distribution and incidence of white pine blister rust in central and southeastern Wyoming and northern Colorado
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A survey of limber pine ( Pinus flexilis James) to determine the geographic distribution, incidence, and severity of white pine blister rust (WPBR) throughout 13 study areas in central and southeastern Wyoming and northern Colorado was conducted from 2002 to 2004. The majority (81.1%) of the 18 719 surveyed limber pines >1.37 m tall were classified as healthy, 13.5% were declining or dying from various causes, and 5.4% were dead. WPBR was present on 278 (55%) of the 504 survey plots. Incidence of the disease ranged from 0% to 100% and averaged 15.5% over all the plots and 28.0% on the infested plots. Likelihood of infection by WPBR was significantly greater for limber pines in larger diameter classes. Incidence was negatively correlated with elevation and positively correlated with geographic position, with more northerly and easterly plots having higher incidences of WPBR. Incidence varied by slope position and did not vary by aspect, slope configuration, or degree of canopy closure. The current level of infestation in central and southeastern Wyoming and northern Colorado has been attained within the past two to four decades. With time, the pathogen may spread to currently uninfested white pine populations and intensify throughout its current distribution impacting valuable ecosystems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".