Simultaneous optimization of harvest schedule and data quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many recent studies, the value of forest inventory information in harvest scheduling has been examined. In a previous paper, we demonstrated that making measurement decisions for stands for which the harvest decision is uncertain simultaneously with the harvest decisions may be highly profitable. In that study, the quality of additional measurements was not a decision variable, and the only options were between making no measurements or measuring perfect information. In this study, we introduce data quality into the decision problem, i.e., the decisionmaker can select between making imperfect or perfect measurements. The imperfect information is obtained with a specific scenario tree formulation. Our decision problem includes three types of decisions: harvest decisions, measurement decisions, and decisions about measurement quality. In addition, the timing of the harvests and measurements must be decided. These decisions are evaluated based on two objectives: discounted aggregate income for the planning periods and the end value of the forest at the end of the planning horizon. Solving the bi-objective optimization problem formed using the ε-constraint method showed that imperfect information was mostly sufficient for the harvest timing decisions during the planning horizon but perfect information was required to meet the end-value constraint. The relative importance of the two objectives affects the measurements indirectly by increasing or decreasing the number of certain decisions (i.e., situations in which the optimal decision is identical in all scenarios).
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".