The predicted effect of the polar vortex of 2019 on winter survival of emerald ash borer and mountain pine beetle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We use simulation models of the winter biology of two forest insects — emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire, 1888) and mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins, 1902) — to illustrate the anticipated effect of the polar vortex of the winter of 2019 on overwintering survival. Cold spells in late January and early and mid-February were cool enough that relatively high levels of mortality of both species may be expected in many parts of northern Canada. However, the high mortality response is not ubiquitous, and neither is it particularly severe compared with winter weather patterns from earlier decades. Forest insect pest managers will be required to carry on their usual work of population assessment and response. As Earth’s climate continues to warm, overwintering survival should, on average, increase in both species. However, the common occurrence of a split polar vortex associated with increasingly meridional jet stream flows should bring the odd winter of heavy mortality.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".