MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162470768 · doi:10.1139/x08-164

A bioeconomic approach to assess the impact of an alien invasive insect on timber supply and harvesting: a case study with Sirex noctilio in eastern Canada

2009· article· en· W2162470768 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Denys Yemshanov, Daniel W. McKenney, Peter de Groot, Dennis A. Haugen, Derek Sidders, Brent Joss

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
FundersNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Food Inspection AgencyMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsInvasive speciesRange (aeronautics)AlienEcologyBiologyAgroforestryGeographyForestryEngineeringDemographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents a model that assesses the potential impact of a new alien insect species, Sirex noctilio Fabricius, on pine timber supply and harvest activities in eastern Canada. We integrate the spread of S. noctilio with a broad-scale growth and harvest allocation model. Projections of pine mortality range between 25 × 10 6 and 115 × 10 6 m 3 over 20 years depending on S. noctilio spread and impact assumptions. Our model suggests Ontario could experience the highest, most immediate losses (78% of the potential losses across eastern Canada), with Quebec sustaining most of the rest of the losses over the next 20 years. Potential losses of $86 to $254 million per year are simulated after 20 years. The net present value of total harvest losses after 28 years of outbreak ranges between $0.7 to $2.1 billion. Adaptation policies decrease short-term losses by 46%–55% and delay larger harvest failures by 9–11 years. Without harvest adaptation, failures to maintain annual allowable cut levels may occur once the total area infested exceeds 15 × 10 6 ha. While better understanding and representing S. noctilio behaviour will involve a significant effort, there is a strong demand by policy makers for this kind of information.

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)0.001
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations57
Published2009
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207