Changing paradigms in the management of forest insect disturbances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract From the early descriptive work, focussed on documenting the forest insect fauna and the impacts of destructive species, Canadian forest entomology has passed through several distinct phases, each triggered by new societal demands of forests and of forest entomologists. We review the various stages that Canadian forest entomology gone through in the last 100 years. Following the initial descriptive and cataloguing phase, forest entomology entered a pest control or forest protection phase, which eventually evolved into the integrated pest management (IPM) era. Although IPM dominated the forest entomology discourse for at least two decades, this approach is now considered to be narrow and pest-centric and is being superseded by a more holistic approach where the emphasis is on ensuring the health and sustainability of forests at landscape levels. The new trends point away from the “command and control” approach of attempting to eradicate pests or reducing pest damage, and towards working with natural processes in the context of ecosystem management. We indicate several areas where 21st century forest entomology could make a contribution towards the sustainable management of Canadian forests.
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 | 0.023 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".