MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3212866039 · doi:10.48044/jauf.2012.016

Rapid Removal of Symptomatic Trees Reduces Dutch Elm Disease Infection Rates

2012· article· en· W3212866039 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jonathan Veilleux, J. Leferink, N. J. Holliday

Bibliographic record

VenueArboriculture & Urban Forestry · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDutch elm diseaseDemographyBiologyGeographyForestryHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the province of Manitoba, Canada, 14 communities were paired on the basis of size and location. From 2004 to 2010 in one member of each pair, rapid removal of American elm (Ulmus americana) trees that displayed symptoms of Dutch elm disease was practiced: newly symptomatic trees were removed within six weeks of symptom detection. The remaining member of each pair continued with autumn or winter removal of symptomatic trees. Treed urban study areas were selected in each community, and in 2008 an inventory of U. americana was taken in these areas. From this inventory and from records of tree removals, estimates of the number of living U. americana and prevalence of Dutch elm disease were made for each year from 2004 to 2010. Following the switch to rapid removal, the annual prevalence of Dutch elm disease in rapid removal communities was 1.5 ± 0.2%, significantly lower than in communities with autumn/winter removal (3.1 ± 0.4%). The study authors estimate that in similar areas the value of the elm resource after 10 years would be almost CAD $600,000/km2 greater if rapid removal rather than autumn/winter removal were practiced. Therefore, under conditions similar to those in these communities, rapid removal should be a component of management programs for Dutch elm disease.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArboriculture & Urban ForestrySame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207