Abundance and Distribution of Foliage on Balsam Fir and White Spruce in Reference to Spruce Budworm Ecology and Absolute Population Density Estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe the distribution and amount of foliage, expressed as foliated branch surface area, weight, or number of buds in the live crown of healthy open-grown and closed-canopy balsam fir and white spruce trees. Balsam fir and white spruce have very similar total foliage surface area and weight. The live crown of white spruce trees contains fewer buds than balsam fir of similar dimensions. Thus, bud density per unit foliage weight or surface area is higher in balsam fir than in white spruce. We also observed that buds tend to grow in clusters more often on balsam fir than on white spruce, and that larvae of the spruce budworm preferentially attack buds that grow in clusters. Equations were developed to predict the total surface area and weight of foliage as well as number of buds in the live crown for estimation of absolute population density of spruce budworm. These equations use diameter at breast height (DBH) and the number of nodes in the live crown as predictors. When data on the number of live nodes are unavailable, it can be estimated from tree height. Equations were also developed from which to estimate foliage area, weight or bud numbers from DBH only.
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".