Predicted impacts of hard pine stem rusts on lodgepole pine dominated stands in central British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We developed two models to predict volume loss due to western gall rust (Endocronartium harknessii (J.P. Moore) Y. Hiratsuka) and comandra blister rust (Cronartium comandrae Peck) on juvenile lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud.) dominated stands in central British Columbia. The models suggest that volume loss is significantly and positively correlated to the incidence of comandra blister rust. The relationship between volume loss and western gall rust incidence was weak. The addition of stand density data improved the statistical fit of the model. We used the growth and yield model Tree and stand simulator (TASS) to predict volume at culmination age (age at which the merchantable mean annual increment was maximized) in thirty 1-ha stem-mapped stands. The lodgepole pine trees we stem mapped were also assessed for hard pine stem rust incidence. We developed our volume loss functions assuming that trees with stem infections of both comandra blister rust and western gall rust were lethal, and that infected trees would die from ages 21 to 40. In areas where comandra blister rust is common, the losses due to the disease can be considerable. We predict that the volume losses due to hard pine stem rusts in lodgepole pine dominated stands are as high as 7.2% by culmination age.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".