MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969256187 · doi:10.1093/wjaf/20.3.149

Survival of the Douglas-Fir Beetle in Peeled and Unpeeled Logs and in Stumps

2005· article· en· W2969256187 on OpenAlexaff
T. L. Shore, W. G. Riel, Les Safranyik, Julie Castonguay

Bibliographic record

VenueWestern Journal of Applied Forestry · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBark beetleBark (sound)DendroctonusBiologyDouglas firHorticultureBotanyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Douglas-fir beetle (Dendroctonus pseudotsugae Hopkins) can cause significant mortality to mature Douglas-fir trees (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) during epidemics. Treatment methods are required to reduce local beetle populations to less-damaging levels. We conducted a study to compare the effect on beetle survival of peeling bark from infested logs at two times of year. By Aug., all beetles in bark from logs peeled in July were dead compared with 155.2 beetles/m2 bark in unpeeled logs. In bark from logs peeled at the end of Aug. and left over winter, there were 3.4 beetles/m2 of bark surface compared with 62.3/m2 in unpeeled logs. It was concluded that peeling logs reduces beetle populations, particularly if done early in the summer. We also examined beetle survival in stumps over winter and found that a mean of 70.4 beetles/stump, or 125.6/m2 of stump surface survived winter. It is estimated that it would take beetles emerging from 24 stumps to kill a tree. West. J. Appl. For. 20(3):149–153.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWestern Journal of Applied ForestrySame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207