MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886953884 · doi:10.1111/epp.12476

Analysis of Canadian wood pellets for the presence of living phytopathogenic fungi and pinewood nematode

2018· article· en· W2886953884 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEPPO Bulletin · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicNematode management and characterization studies
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPelletsPelletBiologyPulp and paper industryHorticultureBotanyEcologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wood pellets from two port storage silos and four pellet plants (manufacturing facilities) in British Columbia and one pellet plant in Quebec and wood chips used for pellet production from British Columbia were cultured to identify the viable fungi that were present. Living fungal pathogens and decay fungi were cultured from the pre‐production chips, but the fungi isolated from finished pellets were not of phytosanitary concern. The absence of living pinewood nematode in all samples analysed was confirmed by real‐time reverse transcription PCR . Genomic DNA from the pinewood nematode was present in the pre‐pellet chip samples and also in the finished pellets from three of the collection sources.

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.

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 score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.194 · 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