MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Features of the Harvesting and Logging Equipment Market in Russia

2020· article· en· W3115177046 on OpenAlex
M.A. Piskunov

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLesnoy Zhurnal (Forestry Journal) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoggingForwarderBusinessPosition (finance)Consolidation (business)Service (business)AgricultureProduction (economics)CommerceIndustrial organizationMarketingEconomicsFinanceComputer scienceForestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Russian forest sector forms an attractive market for harvesting and logging equipment, however the position of Russian manufacturers is extremely weak. A brief overview of the current state of the market is presented with reference to the open sources. Its features are mentioned as compared to the road construction and agricultural machinery sectors. Three transnational companies dominate the Russian market of harvesting and logging equipment: John Deere, Ponsse and Komatsu. Most of the purchased equipment falls on machines for cut-tolength technology, such as harvester and forwarder. The market volume of new machines is estimated at 330–420 forwarders, 165–300 harvesters, about 30–40 feller bunchers and the same number of skidders. There were two waves in the consolidation of the position of foreign companies in Russia. The first was connected with the delivery of equipment and the development of foreign brands in Russia against the background of still high-profile positions of Russian manufacturers in the market. The second is the takeover of enterprises having a service network and reputation by diversified transnational corporations. The main strategies of the leading companies in the current situation are the export of equipment to Russia and the development of a service network. Companies do not turn to another level associated with the opening of production sites or joint ventures for the production of harvesting and logging machines. The Russian market is characterized by the absence of a strong Russian manufacturer of harvesting and logging machines, which is ready to significantly influence or actively participate in the processes of import substitution. The position of such a manufacturer is gradually occupied by the Belarusian Amkodor Holding. The purchase of new harvesting and logging machines can afford major timber companies. The main production sites of harvesting and logging machines are located in Finland, Sweden, USA, and Canada. In order to support forestry machine engineering, in addition to economic measures of stimulation approved in other sectors, it is proposed: to organize the work of scientific forest engineering centers on the base of public-private partnership with the financial support from the major vertically-integrated timber corporate groups; to stimulate the development of Russian sector-specific information technologies for harvesting and logging; to initiate the partnership with companies from the People’s Republic of China to launch the design and production of new-generation harvesting and logging machines.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.259
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.188 · 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