MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783354364 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2017-0135

Assessing the future susceptibility of mountain pine beetle (<i>Dendroctonus ponderosae</i>) in the Great Lakes Region using forest composition and structural attributes

2018· article· en· W2783354364 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Marcella A. Windmuller-Campione

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDendroctonusMountain pine beetleBark beetleSpecies richnessForestryEcologyGeographyForest inventoryWoody plantOrdinationForest managementEnvironmental scienceBark (sound)Biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The potential expansion of mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins) from western North America into the Great Lakes Region (Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Ontario) could negatively impact eastern pine forests. Currently, no metrics exist to assess susceptibility in the region. I have developed a hazard rating system for the Great Lakes Region that utilizes common attributes of forest structure and composition and have assessed the current susceptibility using the Forest Inventory and Analysis database. The vast majority of plots (∼90%) that contained at least one living pine species were classified as moderately or highly susceptible. Plots on federal (USDA Forest Service) lands had higher susceptibility ratings than those on private or state-owned lands. Ordination results highlighted differences among the susceptibility scores (high, moderate, and low) across plots. Plots with high susceptibility were associated with greater total plot density and pine density, and plots with low susceptibility were associated with lower total plot density and greater overstory species richness. There are still many unknowns regarding mountain pine beetle in the Great Lakes Region; however, as natural resource managers plan for the future, they may want to consider the potential arrival of mountain pine beetle in eastern pine forests when developing silvicultural prescriptions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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