MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6948351549 · doi:10.5061/dryad.6320ph4

Data from: The effect of host condition on adult emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) performance

2019· dataset· en· W6948351549 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueData Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) · 2019
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmerald ash borerGirdlingHost (biology)LarvaInsectPupa

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For invasive species, how successful adult insects are in various life history processes influences how well invaders can colonize and reproduce. Emerald ash borer (EAB) is a significant invasive forest insect in North America that has killed millions of ash trees. While the effect of host condition on larval performance has been examined, the effect of host condition on adult performance has not. In this study, healthy trees were girdled to simulate poor host condition and then both artificially and naturally infested by EAB. The ensuing adults that developed and emerged were then assessed for their success in terms of number, lifespan, size, mating success and fecundity. Girdling reduced the number of insects that emerged from trees, and was associated with reduced lifespan, but had confounding effects on mating success and fecundity. Adult size was positively affected by girdling but negatively affected by crowding that larvae experienced during development. This suggests that it is not necessary to consider host condition when assessing the risk of EAB, as the dynamics of populations attacking poor-condition trees will be the same as the dynamics populations attacking healthy trees.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0400.033

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData Archiving and Networked Services (DANS)Same topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207