Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spruce budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana (Clem.)) outbreaks are a dominant natural disturbance in the forests of Canada and northeastern USA. Widespread, severe defoliation by this native insect results in large-scale mortality and growth reductions of spruce (Picea sp.) and balsam fir (Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.) forests, and largely determines future age–class structure and productivity. The last major spruce budworm outbreak defoliated over 58 million hectares in the 1970s–1980s, and caused 32–43 million m3/year of timber volume losses from 1978 to 1987, in Canada. Management to deal with spruce budworm outbreaks has emphasized forest protection, spraying registered insecticides to prevent defoliation and keep trees alive. Other tactics can include salvage harvesting, altering harvest schedules to remove the most susceptible stands, or reducing future susceptibility by planting or thinning. Chemical insecticides are no longer used, and protection strategies use biological insecticides Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.) or tebufenozide, a specific insect growth regulator. Over the last five years, a $30 million research project has tested another possible management tactic, termed an ‘early intervention strategy’, aimed at area-wide management of spruce budworm populations. This includes intensive monitoring to detect ‘hot spots’ of rising budworm populations before defoliation occurs, targeted insecticide treatment to prevent spread, and detailed research into target and non-target insect effects. The objective of this Special Issue is to compile the most recent research on protection strategies against spruce budworm. A series of papers will describe results and prospects for the use of an early intervention strategy in spruce budworm and other insect management.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".