MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3026108290 · doi:10.5558/tfc2020-009

The spruce budworm, a potential threat for Norway spruce in eastern Canada?

2020· article· en· W3026108290 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Richard Berthiaume, Christian Hébert, Alain Dupont, Martin Charest, Éric Bauce

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsCentre Intégré de Santé et de Services Sociaux des LaurentidesUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversité Laval
KeywordsSpruce budwormBlack spruceChoristoneura fumiferanaPupaBiologyLarvaPicea abiesReforestationForestryEcologyGeographyTaigaTortricidae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Norway spruce, an exotic tree species in North America, was largely used in reforestation programs in the province of Québec between 1972 and 1990. Several of these plantations are now reaching their commercial maturity and the resurgence of spruce budworm outbreak is a reminder that the potential threat of this damaging defoliator for Norway spruce still remains unknown. We used two life-history traits, pupal weight and overwintered larval (L2) weight, to compare spruce budworm biological performance on Norway spruce, white spruce and black spruce. Pupae collected on Norway spruce and overwintered larvae produced by parents that fed on Norway spruce were heavier than those coming from black spruce. Spruce budworm performance was similar on Norway and white spruce, showing similar suitability and suggesting that it can represent a potential threat for Norway spruce plantations established after the last spruce budworm outbreak in eastern North America.

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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207