Historical trends in Canadian forest entomology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Canada has a distinguished history of research in forest entomology. The number of peer-reviewed publications emanating from studies in forest entomology in Canada greatly increased following the Second World War. Much of the outstanding historical success in Canadian forest entomological research is attributable to the work of entomologists employed by the Canadian Forest Service, who authored the majority of studies until the mid 1970s and usually published them in The Canadian Entomologist. Since that time the majority of studies have been published by Canadian universities in a broad range of journals. Most early research in forest entomology in Canada was carried out by men, but since that time the proportion of forest entomological research carried out by women has increased significantly. The majority of research in central and eastern Canada focussed on defoliators and their natural enemies and host plants whereas the majority of research in western Canada examined bark beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) and their natural enemies and host plants. Although publications on defoliators and their natural enemies have occurred continuously throughout the historical development of forest entomology in Canada, the numbers of publications on wood borers (Coleoptera: Buprestidae, Cerambycidae) and bark beetles and their natural enemies have never been higher than they are presently.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 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".