MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Interception and Eradication of <i>Lymantria</i> Moths in British Columbia, Canada: 50-Year History of a Thwarted Invasion

2025· article· en· W4415010914 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gwylim S. Blackburn, Nicholas A. Wong, Babita Bains, Tim Ebata, Dave Holden, Tracy Hueppelsheuser, Brian H. Van Hezewijk

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Health Cases · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Food Inspection AgencyCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationDeciduousWildlifeIntroduced speciesInterceptionLampyridaeLymantria dispar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The spongy moth ( Lymantria dispar dispar ) and several of its close relatives (subspecies L . d . asiatica and L . d . japonica , and the species L . umbrosa and L . albescens ) are defoliators that pose an invasion threat in Canada and around the world. Members of this group can disperse far beyond their native ranges on vehicles and freight, and they can attack a wide array of deciduous and coniferous plant species globally. Occasional population outbreaks can also defoliate large geographic areas over multiple years, resulting in widespread tree decline or mortality and a variety of other ecological impacts. As a result, these moths pose a serious threat to natural and urban forests. We summarize the history of Lymantria moth incursions into the province of British Columbia, Canada, since the start of regular surveillance and eradication began in that region near the end of the 1970s. Proactive public policy and a science-based management approach have contributed to a successful partnership between the federal and BC provincial governments to thwart a Lymantria moth invasion for nearly 50 years. Information © His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Natural Resources

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.167 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant Health CasesSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207