MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2343926955 · doi:10.1093/wjaf/20.2.128

Productivity and Cost of Partial Harvesting Method to Control Mountain Pine Beetle Infestations in British Columbia

2005· article· en· W2343926955 on OpenAlexaffabout
Han‐Sup Han, Chad Renzie

Bibliographic record

VenueWestern Journal of Applied Forestry · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoggingMountain pine beetlePinus contortaForestrySalvage loggingEnvironmental scienceFellingSkid (aerodynamics)Abies lasiocarpaCost analysisAgroforestryEngineeringGeographySnagEcologyHabitatBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Small patch cutting (<1 ha in size) in mature lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Douglas var. latifolia Engelmann) stands has been introduced in central British Columbia, Canada to slow the spread of mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopk.) populations. This practice is locally referred to as “Snip and Skid” logging. This article addresses the operational challenges of implementing the method, with an emphasis on the cost of each phase of logging. Total stump-to-truck expenses incurred with Snip and Skid logging in each patch at an average of C$17.00/m3 (C$14.98 to C$19.71/m3). However, if one includes other cost allowances, such as overhead and profit for the logging contractor, the overall cost is C$22.28/m3. These costs greatly increase when trees are smaller. Other costs for implementing the Snip and Skid method, such as planning and layout, ground probing, and baiting, further increase the total cost of implementation. Walking and low-bedding, that are not required for typical timber-production logging operations, accounted for 57% of the total delay in Snip and Skid logging. In this particular study, five trees were damaged per 100 m along the skid trails created to access the patches, but we found no high stumps or significant impacts on soils. West. J. Appl. For. 20(2):128–133.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.235 · 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
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

Citations11
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWestern Journal of Applied ForestrySame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207