On the deduction and quantification of irruptive dynamics in mountain pine beetle population and proxy data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In attempting to develop a coherent description of the irruptive dynamics of mountain pine beetle (MPB) in North America, we examined a range of cases where authors described the dependency of intrinsic population growth rates on population attack levels. In some cases, detailed population data were used, but in most cases, investigators relied on operational aerial detection survey data. We found that study conclusions varied significantly depending on the type of data analysed and the spatial and temporal dimensions of the monitoring program. The ability to detect an intrinsic Allee effect (i.e., positive density‐dependent growth for low and rising population densities) depended on the type and the intensity of the sampling effort and the extent of sampling in space and time. Consequently, not all studies were able to quantify the irruption threshold (i.e., the population density at which endemic populations may transition towards the epidemic state). Notably, in every study where an Allee effect was demonstrated, investigators also identified at least one extrinsic environmental factor (e.g., winter weather, summer drought, microclimatic effect) that was regulating its strength. Our results suggest that population surveys conducted from the ground are a necessary complement to aerial survey data if the goal is to make inferences about the irruptive potential for MPB populations and the role of environmental factors in shaping that irruptive potential.
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 | 0.001 | 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".