The technical development of forwarders in Sweden between 1962 and 2012 and of sales between 1975 and 2017
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although being rather similar in appearance, forwarders have gone through substantial development during the more than half a century they have been used in forestry. The aim was to describe the development in Sweden, by a combination of historical narratives and data. The latter consists of technical parameters of forwarders sold on the Swedish market from 1962 to 2012, together with sales figures from 1975 to 2017. Data were collected from the original specifications from manufacturers; advertisements in old forestry magazines; Internet forums; and from the literature. In total, 51 forwarder manufacturing companies were identified, all located in Sweden or Finland, which produced over that time 361 models in total. The weight and load capacity has increased over time, as well as engine power and torque per tonne total weight. Load index has decreased over time. Ground pressure decreased from 1962 to 1985, but then remained stable. In Sweden, 12,602 forwarders were sold from 1975 to 2012. The trend for annual sales decreased until 1993 but since 2005 has increased to between 300 and 400 forwarders per year. Since 1995 annual sales in Sweden have been between four and six forwarders per million m3 harvested industrial wood. Corresponding values for the years 1975–1984 were double that. Why the first Swedish forwarder was developed from a farm tractor rather than importing an already existing, purpose-built forwarder from Canada is discussed, as well as the probable direction of future developments in forwarder design and construction. New forwarder size-classes are suggested. Soil damage issues are predicted to be of increased importance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".