MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2485161908

Viburnum leaf beetle, Pyrrhalta viburni (Paykull) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) : Dispersal pattern of a palearctic landscape pest in New York and its distribution status in the northeastern U.S. and eastern Canada

2003· article· en· W2485161908 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul A. Weston, E. Richard Hoebeke

Bibliographic record

VenueBiodiversity Heritage Library (Smithsonian Institution) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsViburnumBiological dispersalLeaf beetleShrubEcologyPEST analysisGeographyHabitatBiologyBotanyPopulationLarvaDemography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pyrrhalta viburni, a chrysomelid leaf beetle native to Eurasia, was first detected in central New York in 1996, and since has been spreading throughout the state. Distribution records are given and mapped for this Viburnum-feeding specialist in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Vermont. By summer of 2002, P. viburni had been recorded from 33 counties in New York, and its subsequent spread throughout a larger portion of the U.S. can be anticipated. In addition to feeding on several species of cultivated viburnums, the beetle also thrives on the native Viburnum dentatum var. lucidum (arrowwood), a widely occurring understory shrub in northeastern North America. The dispersal of P. viburni in New York has largely followed the distribution of its host plants, which leads us to predict that future spread will proceed most quickly through habitats contiguous with the current distribution of the pest and containing denser stands of V. dentatum var. lucidum or other native and cultivated viburnums that are suitable hosts for P. viburni. We also summarize the current distribution of P. viburni in neighboring states of the northeastern U.S. and in provinces of eastern Canada, based on personal communications with entomologists most acquainted with this ornamental and nursery pest.

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)0.000
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 score0.491
Threshold uncertainty score0.832

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.165
Teacher spread0.157 · 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

Citations16
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiodiversity Heritage Library (Smithsonian Institution)Same topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207