MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392561943 · doi:10.22543/0090-0222.2467

Observations on a Dendroctonus simplex (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) Outbreak in a Rangewide Tamarack (Larix laricina) Provenance Plantation in Michigan

2024· article· en· W4392561943 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert A. Haack, Richard W. Blank

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Great Lakes Entomologist · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Forest ServiceU.S. Department of AgricultureCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityBrigham Young UniversityMichigan State UniversityUniversity of Minnesota
KeywordsBiologyLarchCurculionidaeForestryProvenanceLatitudeOutbreakBark (sound)BotanyEcologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A tamarack [Larix laricina (Du Roi) K. Koch] provenance plantation, consisting of 33 seed sources from the United States and Canada, was established in 1969 in southern Michigan (Kalamazoo County). About half of the trees were removed in fall 1984 when the stand was thinned, with the cut trees piled on the edge of the stand. The stand then experienced a severe ice storm in January 1985. The eastern larch beetle, Dendroctonus simplex LeConte, colonized the cut logs in 1985 and also infested many of the standing trees. By the end of 1986, over half the remaining trees had been killed by D. simplex, with six seed sources suffering no beetle-related tree mortality, twenty having 20-61% tree mortality, and seven having 67-100% mortality. Mean tree height and DBH were negatively related to the latitude of the seed source origin. However, no significant linear relationships were found between percent tree mortality in 1986 with either mean tree DBH or latitude of the seed-source origin, but there was a significant negative relationship with increasing ice-storm damage.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.930

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.235 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Great Lakes EntomologistSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207