MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151008442 · doi:10.1139/x09-020

Diameter of lodgepole pine and mortality caused by the mountain pine beetle: factors that influence their relationship and applicability for susceptibility rating

2009· article· en· W2151008442 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Niklas Björklund, B. Staffan Lindgren

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPinus contortaMountain pine beetleDendroctonusLatitudeElevation (ballistics)Site indexIndex (typography)EcologyTree (set theory)ForestryRegression analysisGeographyBiologyStatisticsMathematicsBark beetleBark (sound)Computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During outbreaks the mountain pine beetle ( Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins) kills large lodgepole pine trees ( Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud.) more frequently than smaller ones. There is, however, considerable variation in the relation of diameter to incidence of attack. In a meta-analysis of published data we found that the relationship was primarily determined by geographic location (elevation, latitude, and longitude). We propose a new tree mortality measure, the probability of death index, defined as the average percentage of mortality for trees >23 cm. The index may improve the precision in predictive modeling of tree mortality, as it provides a biologically relevant measure of mortality, since it only includes trees that contribute to the growth of an epidemic and is not influenced by the number of trees within a diameter class. To be useful to forest managers, it must be possible to predict the index from stand parameters that are easily measured. The usefulness of the index was supported by a meta-analysis, which showed that 53% of the variation in the mortality index was explained by geographic location. Tree density did not explain any additional variation. Future research is needed to evaluate the performance of the probability of death index compared with that of other mortality measures.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.222
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations29
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207