Bibliographic record
Abstract
&gt; From an economic point of view, the age structure in the Swiss forest is not sustainable. Many stands are too old and consist of trees with large diameters, which are less in demand on the timber market at the moment. The forest lacks younger stands aged up to 30 years old, but its age structure has improved overall since 1995.<br />&gt; From an ecological point of view, the Swiss forest is rather young. Very few stands reach their natural life expectancy, and only 0.4 per cent of Swiss forests are older than 250 years. Since 1995 the number of large old trees has markedly increased, but today they still make up only a small proportion of the whole forest stand.<br />&gt; Stands that are variably structured, multi-layered and not too dense are ecologically preferable, and also better able to withstand wind and snow pressure.<br />&gt; Stands on more than a quarter of the forest area are very dense, and have increased slightly since 1995 in all regions apart from the Swiss Plateau. This is probably a consequence of the forests in the Alps and on the Southern slopes of the Alps being used less intensively.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".