Log classification in the hardwood timber industry: method and value analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural resources industries, such as the forest product industry, must deal with variable input material, which affects their efficiency and their ability to accurately predict output yields. In order to address this, the industry can use technologies that adapt to variable input, or plan its operations taking variability into account. In the Canadian softwood lumber industry, the first approach is used with the adoption of advanced technologies that adapt sawing patterns to logs’ and work-in-process characteristic using scanners technology. Another approach to deal with material variability is input material classification. Specific characteristics can be measured to classify input material and reduce variability within each class. However, whether the process involves logs, mining ores or recycled papers, material classification has both a value and a cost. This paper first proposes a method based on classification tree analysis to classify hardwood logs. Next, using agent-based simulation, it analyses the value of different classification strategies, from detailed, to no classification at all. Results show in the context of the Québec hardwood lumber industry that the benefit of detailed classification is offset by its cost, while a relatively simple classification strategy dramatically improves output yield at relatively low cost.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".