MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W341442882

Pine Shoot Beetle Research Update

2000· article· en· W341442882 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert A. Haack, Therese M. Poland

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBroodBiological dispersalForestryBiologyEcologyGeographyPopulationDemography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Established populations of the pine shoot beetle, Tomicus piniperda (L.) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), were first detected in the US in 1992. As of January 2000, T. piniperda was known to be established in 271 counties in 11 US states (IL, IN, MD, MI, NH, NY, OH, PA, VT, WI, WV) and 25 counties in Ontario and 8 counties in Quebec, Canada. In a 1998 study, we found that marked and released T. piniperda were captured in traps up to 400m outside of operational sawmills and simulated millyards despite the abundance of brood material present in the millyards; 400m was the furthest distance to which traps were placed in 1998. In 1999, we investigated T. piniperda's,/I> potential for longer range dispersal in the absence of suitable breeding material. In this study, traps were placed out to 2 km in an open agricultural field. Marked and released beetles were captured up to 800m from a central release point. In a companion study conducted in Geneva, New York by Al Barak (USDA APHIS, OTIS) marked and released T.pinipera adults were recaptured up to 2km from the release point. Such studies indicate that T.piniperda is capable of long distance flight and that adults could be carried even further by strong winds.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.007

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicForest Insect Ecology and Management→French-language works237,207→