MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158678427 · doi:10.1139/x06-259

Dwarf mistletoe effects on fuel loadings in ponderosa pine forests in northern Arizona

2007· article· en· W2158678427 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chad M. Hoffman, Robert L. Mathiasen, Carolyn Hull Sieg

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Parasitism and Resistance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanopyInfestationForestryEnvironmental scienceAgronomyBiologyEcologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Southwestern dwarf mistletoe ( Arceuthobium vaginatum (Willd.) J. Presl ssp. cryptopodum ) infests about 0.9 million ha in the southwestern United States. Several studies suggest that dwarf mistletoes affect forest fuels and fire behavior; however, few studies have quantified these effects. We compared surface fuel loadings and predicted fire behavior among four levels of dwarf mistletoe infestation (none, light, moderate, and severe) in a total of 239 plots on 11 sites on basaltic soils in northern Arizona. In each plot we measured tree attributes, dwarf mistletoe rating and surface fuel loading. Stands severely infested by dwarf mistletoe had lower (P < 0.05) tree density and higher snag density, but higher (P < 0.05) total surface fuel loadings and total fuel loadings >7.62 cm and <7.62 cm, than non-infested stands. However, there were no statistical differences in any canopy fuel variables among infestation classes. Predicted fire behavior indicated that the wind speed required to promote the spread of a surface fire into the canopy was lower in severely infested stands than in non-infested stands. These results suggest that stands in northern Arizona that are severely infested with dwarf mistletoe should be priority areas for fuels treatments.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.251 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicPlant Parasitism and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207