Effectiveness of combinations of shelterwood, scarification, and feeding barriers to reduce pine weevil damage
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a field experiment in southern Sweden we investigated the single and combined effects of shelterwood, soil scarification, and feeding barriers on pine weevil (Hylobius abietis L.) damage to Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) seedlings. The seedlings were planted on four different sites, each consisting of two plots, one clearcut and one with shelterwood (98148 stems/ha). These plots were each subdivided into two parts, one scarified and one left untreated. The seedlings were protected with insecticide or feeding barriers or left as unprotected controls. Three years after planting the mortality due to pine weevil damage was high (88%) for unprotected seedlings on clearcuts with no scarification. The damage-reducing effects of shelterwood, scarification, and physical protection were additive. Using all three methods in combination the mortality due to pine weevil feeding was less than 7% after 3 years. The order of effectiveness of the individual measures for reducing damage by pine weevils was insecticide, scarification, physical protection, and shelterwood. Scarification reduced pine weevil damage equally well on clearcuts as in shelterwoods. However, the effects of scarification were more long lasting in shelterwoods.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it