Records of unsuccessful attack by<i>Anoplophora glabripennis</i>(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) on broadleaf trees of questionable suitability in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Discovery of the non-nativeAnoplophora glabripennisMotschulsky (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in Ontario, Canada, in 2003 led to the implementation of an eradication programme. The plan consisted of removing all infested trees and all trees belonging to a genus considered suitable for complete development of this wood-borer that were found within 400 m of an infested tree; however, many of the trees within that 400 m belonged to genera for which suitability for development ofA. glabripenniswas questionable or unknown. We visually inspected over 3000 such trees annually for the three years following removal of infested trees. All but one tree were unattacked: an ash (Fraxinus excelsiorLinnaeus (Oleaceae)) tree had signs of oviposition and early-instar development, but not of adult emergence. Before that survey, we had found only one other species with questionable suitability, a little leaf linden (Tilia cordata Miller (Malvaceae)) that had many signs of oviposition, but no evidence of full development, suggesting resistance toA. glabripennis. Both of these trees were within 200 m of the most heavily infested maple (Acer platanoidesLinnaeus (Sapindaceae)) tree found in that infestation, suggesting that colonisation of trees with questionable or unknown suitability might occur mostly where population pressure is high.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".