Modern forest entomology: Directions of research, problems, and prospects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on analysis of publications, the principal directions of research carried out in the field of forest entomology in Russia and abroad are considered. Most of the foreign papers are published by entomologists from the USA (27%), Sweden (14%), Canada (12%), and Finland (8%), many studies are carried out by international research teams. In all, the publications considered cover over 90 species of forest insects (excluding predators and parasites) that may act as more or less important forest pests. Most of the papers are devoted to species of great economic significance. Most effort in entomological studies carried out in Russia is focused on the role of phytophagous insects in forest ecosystems, their population dynamics and the factors of its regulation, and ecology of selected pest species. In the studies carried out abroad, much more attention is paid to physiology of insects, the problems of communication, looking for pheromones, kairomones, and antifeedants to be used as new agents of plant protection and improvement of methods of their application, and also to interactions between phytophages and their host plants. The problems hindering development of forest entomology in Russia are considered; most of them result from lack of steady financial support of this field of research from the government.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".