The use of cellular automaton approach in forest planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents an optimization method based on cellular automaton (CA) for solving spatial forest planning problems. The CA maximizes stand-level and neighbourhood objectives locally, i.e., separately for different stands or raster cells. Global objectives are dealt with by adding a global part to the objective function and gradually increasing its weight until the global targets are met to a required degree. The method was tested in an area that consisted of 2500 (50 × 50) hexagons 1 ha in size. The CA was used with both parallel and sequential state-updating rules. The method was compared with linear programming (LP) in four nonspatial forest planning problems where net present value (NPV) was maximized subject to harvest constraints. The CA solutions were within 99.6% of the LP solutions in three problems and 97.9% in the fourth problem. The CA was compared with simulated annealing (SA) in three spatial problems where a multiobjective utility function was maximized subject to periodical harvest and ending volume constraints. The nonspatial goal was the NPV and the spatial goals were old forest and cutting area aggregation as well as dispersion of regeneration cuttings. The CA produced higher objective function values than SA in all problems. Especially, the spatial objective variables were better in the CA solutions, whereas differences in NPV were small. There were no major differences in the performance of the parallel and sequential cell state-updating modes of the CA.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".