Comparison of Two Treatment Regimes for Managing Western Balsam Bark Beetle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy of pheromone-baited, standing subalpine fir Abies lasiocarpa (Hook) Nutt. and felled green trap trees was tested in southern British Columbia as potential manage- ment techniques for containing western balsam bark beetle Dryocoetes confusus Swaine populations prior to logging. In the year treatments were deployed, standing trees in close proximity to baited trees had significantly higher levels of current attack than those near felled trap trees or in control blocks. The control blocks had the lowest level of current at- tack. Diameters of attacked trees were significantly greater than unattacked trees in all treatments. Naturally attacked, standing subalpine fir had high levels of occupation (number of nuptial galleries) along the full length of the bole. Baited trees had similar levels of occupancy up to six metres in height. Felled green trees had lower occupancy than the baited or naturally attacked trees. Although baited trees concentrated attack into a discrete area, they did not artificially trigger an outbreak or further population expansion in the year following treatment. Felled trap trees appeared less attractive to western balsam bark beetle than natural, susceptible, standing subalpine fir; they are more difficult to de- ploy and therefore not recommended as a means of containing western balsam bark beetle prior to logging.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".