MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062827950 · doi:10.1139/x04-048

Creating land allocation zones for forest management: a simulated annealing approach

2004· article· en· W2062827950 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Mark Boyland, John D. Nelson, Fred L. Bunnell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWeightingSimulated annealingHabitatComputer scienceEnvironmental resource managementGeographyEnvironmental scienceEcologyAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the Zone Allocation Model (ZAM) that uses the simulated annealing algorithm to create forest management zones. ZAM partitions the landscape into the Timber, Habitat, and Old Growth zones by allocating small land tiles into contiguous areas. The zone allocation process is guided by landscape-level targets and size and shape objectives. An ecological representation objective proportionally distributes all ecosystem types into each of the three zones. Priority objectives control allocation of identified lands that are targeted for specific zones. All objectives are combined within an objective function, with a penalty-weighting system specifying relative importance of each objective. The ZAM model found 1.7%–4.4% of theoretical optimum scores from small to large problems, respectively. A demonstration on a 1.2 × 10 6 –ha landscape from coastal British Columbia illustrates the iterative exploration of compromises between objectives that leads to informed zone allocation decisions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.594
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.266 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations39
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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