MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416861757 · doi:10.3390/f16121799

Forest Dieback of Abies Balsamea in Eastern North America

2025· article· en· W4416861757 on OpenAlexafffund
Adrian Bent, Mason T. MacDonald, James W.N. Steenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityMitacsMichigan State University
KeywordsBalsamAbies balsameaAbiotic componentClimate changeEcosystemDeforestation (computer science)LimitingForest ecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An increased shift in climate change contributes to accelerated forest dieback around the world. Forest dieback is the process of a forest ecosystem suffering from disease, with mortality rates increasing among trees, potentially leading to the death of the ecosystem. Dieback can be caused through a variety of biotic and abiotic factors such as climate change, land use change, pests, pathogens, and invasive species. Balsam fir trees (Abies balsamea) in eastern North America are particularly vulnerable to dieback. Increased temperatures associated with climate change hinder their tree germination, growth, and competitiveness in an ecosystem. It has been determined that limiting forest dieback damage can be performed by monitoring forest conditions and identifying symptoms such as yellowing of leaves, delayed growth, and reduced stem and twig growth. Diversification was determined to be one of the primary methods of reducing the damage caused by forest dieback. Other methods that were found included decreasing deforestation and limiting the effects of climate change within an ecosystem. These strategies can be applied to balsam fir trees, although the efficacy of mitigation strategies would need to be explored long term.

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)0.000
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 score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.873

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.216 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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