Optimization of irregular-grid cellular automata and application in risk management of wind damage in forest planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study demonstrated how cellular automata, using irregular grids, can be used to minimize the risk of wind damage in forest management planning. The development of a forest in central Finland was simulated for a 30-year period with three subplanning periods. A forest growth and yield model in association with a mechanistic wind damage model was applied to simulate forest growth and to calculate the length of stand edges at risk. Irregular cellular automata were utilized to optimize the harvest schedules for reducing the risk and maintaining a sustainable harvest level. The cellular automata produced rational results, i.e., new clearcuts were often placed next to open gaps, thereby, reducing the amount of vulnerable stand edges. The algorithms of the cellular automata rapidly converged and optimized the harvest schedules in an efficient way, especially when risk minimization was the only objective. In a planning problem that included even-flow timber harvesting objectives (harvest level equal to the total timber growth), the targets were almost achieved. Although the cellular automaton had slightly larger deviations of harvesting from the targets compared with other tested heuristic approaches (simulated annealing, tabu search, and genetic algorithms), it had the best performance when minimizing the expected wind damage.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".