MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968201339 · doi:10.1080/14942119.2014.957527

Developing training for industrial wood supply management

2014· article· en· W1968201339 on OpenAlexaff
Dag Fjeld, Sophie D’Amours, Ljusk Ola Eriksson, Mikael Frisk, Sébastien Lemieux, Philippe Marier, Mikael Rönnqvist

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Forest Engineering · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupply chainContext (archaeology)Training (meteorology)Engineering managementSupply chain managementSupply and demandProcess managementBusinessEngineeringOperations managementKnowledge managementComputer scienceMarketingEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An understanding of supply chain management is a prerequisite for efficient supply operations. This paper presents the structure of training currently used in Sweden to prepare master’s-level foresters for managing wood supply operations. Based on a basic framework of professional tasks, eight key learning outcomes are targeted; one focuses on raw material requirements, three on securing supply, three on enabling delivery, and one on control and coordination. Sixteen exercises are used to meet the eight learning outcomes. An overview of the exercises is presented as well as the pedagogical approach used. Current training is focused on developing student understanding of the industrial context as well as competences and skills required to solve typical professional tasks. The paper concludes with a discussion of further development opportunities including a coupling of tasks and learning outcomes with applicable operations research methodology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.007

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Forest EngineeringSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207