MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401583428 · doi:10.3390/f15081425

An Evaluation of a Winter Mortality Model for the Mountain Pine Beetle

2024· article· en· W4401583428 on OpenAlexaffabout
Devin W. Goodsman, J. Weber, Katherine P. Bleiker

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDendroctonusMountain pine beetleBark beetleNational parkEnvironmental scienceBark (sound)EcologyPopulationLimitingAbies lasiocarpaPinus contortaBiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The winter mortality of mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins) larvae caused by temperatures below survivable thresholds and sudden decreases in temperature is among the most influential factors limiting population growth. Due to the importance of winter mortality in the demise of mountain pine beetle infestations, a widely used winter mortality model was developed at the Canadian Forest Service and the United States Forest Service. It predicts lethal temperatures and survival probabilities given temperature time series over the winter season. We present a rare and possibly the first peer-reviewed validation of this winter mortality model, wherein we independently tested the model at a new region in Canada by comparing model predictions to the observed lower lethal temperature thresholds and cold-associated mortality. Model predictions were biologically reasonable but slightly biased. Bias was exacerbated by the inaccurate translation of air temperature data from weather stations to temperatures under the bark where larvae develop. The spatial prediction of relative mortality observed across the study area in Banff National Park was poor—likely because the mountainous terrain presents a difficult prediction challenge when under-bark temperatures are not directly observed. Our results will help inform users of model constraints and how to optimize the accuracy of model predictions.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.230
Threshold uncertainty score0.762

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207