Using preference information in developing alternative forest plans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of new alternative plans based on applying multicriteria decision making (MCDM) techniques in discrete choice situations has received little attention in the context of forest planning. This article proposes a two-stage approach to be applied in participatory decision-making situations in which a specific number of initial alternatives are evaluated by the decision makers (DMs) using MCDM analysis. The preference information, obtained from these analyses in the form of target values, is then used for generating still more efficient forest plans. This paper concentrates on the latter stage and tests nine different goal programming (GP) formulations. This paper uses the formulas and preference information obtained from a case study of three forest owners to generate new forest plans. Among the tested techniques, formulas with a penalty function provided the most appropriate plans. These GP formulations could enhance the participatory planning processes in which a discrete number of alternatives are evaluated. With further development, this process could be applied to a variety of forest ownership types and could be a useful tool in supporting group decision making. This proposed approach could facilitate an increase in the DMs’ satisfaction and an increased commitment towards the derived decision.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".