MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7100072329

Emerald Ash Borer Research: A Decade of Progress on an Expanding Pest Problem

2013· article· en· W7100072329 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmerald ash borerFirewoodInfestationArtilleryPest controlStorm
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Beautiful, shady neighborhoods all over the Midwest and the Northeast are bare of their ash trees, cut down because of the emerald ash borer (EAB). The rapidly spreading EAB infestation has also set off a storm of scientific investigation into the ecological and social damage and the costs to affected communities. Since it was first detected in 2002 around Detroit and neighboring parts of Ontario, EAB has spread to 18 states, from Kansas City to Minneapolis/St. Paul in the Midwest, south to the Smoky Mountains National Park, and all the way north to New Hampshire and Montreal, Quebec. Since its arrival, EAB has been able to attack and kill all native species of North American ashes (genus Fraxinus) that it has encountered. Much of the long-distance spread of EAB is due to human activities—people moving infested ash firewood and nursery trees out of quarantined areas. Early eradication efforts consisted of cutting and chipping or burning infested wood and prevention efforts focused on quarantines, developing detection and treatment methods for individual trees, and education efforts such as the “Don’t Move Firewood ” campaign. Knowledge about the EAB and how to control it, or at least slow its spread, continues to drive efforts to save ash. Dead ash “skeletons ” create openings in canopy. Photo by Kathleen Knight, U.S. Forest Service continued on page two 1 continued from page one

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.012
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.007

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.281 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicForest Insect Ecology and Management→French-language works237,207→