MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020488190 · doi:10.1139/x03-039

Tabu search design for difficult forest management optimization problems

2003· article· en· W2020488190 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Evelyn W. Richards, Eldon A. Gunn

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTabu searchMathematical optimizationComputer scienceHeuristicAdjacency listConstraint (computer-aided design)Set (abstract data type)Guided Local SearchMathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A series of tabu search (TS) methods for solving the stand harvesting and road access optimization problem was developed and evaluated. This challenging forest management problem includes spatial constraints for maximum opening size, adjacency delay (green up), as well as timber-flow targets derived exogenously from a strategic planning process. The base harvest decision unit is the stand, and harvest blocks are created dynamically as adjacent stands are scheduled for treatments. The road network subproblem is solved using a fast heuristic method to select a minimum discounted cost set of road construction projects so that scheduled stands are accessible. The TS methods range from simple ones with fixed tabu tenure to an adaptive search with feedback mechanisms to control tabu tenure and to direct the search near constraint boundaries. It was found that while simple TS algorithms can find feasible solutions to the problem, these may be far from optimal. A good short-term memory strategy, constraint boundaries smoothed using penalty functions, and customized diversification moves were important design elements in the most successful TS algorithm for this problem. This paper points out the necessity to design the TS method carefully, since there are many possible TS designs and the design choices matter.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations56
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207