MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099012813 · doi:10.1139/x04-030

Projecting vector-based road networks with a shortest path algorithm

2004· article· en· W2099012813 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
A. Anderson, John D. Nelson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSensitivity (control systems)Computer scienceForest roadShortest path problemNetwork planning and designTransport engineeringPath (computing)Variety (cybernetics)Node (physics)Data miningOperations researchAlgorithmEngineeringArtificial intelligenceGeographyTelecommunicationsTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Manually designing road networks for planning purposes is labour-intensive. As an alternative, we have developed a computer algorithm to generate road networks under a variety of assumptions related to road design standards. This method does not create an optimized road network, but rather mimics the procedure a professional might use when projecting roads by hand. Because many feasible road networks are possible, sensitivity analysis is required to choose the best ones. Such analysis gives forest planners additional information with which to assess the long-term consequences of road density and road standards common in forest management decisions. The procedures used to create road networks are presented in this paper, along with a sensitivity analysis of assumptions on total network length, percentage of landings connected, grades, and horizontal and vertical alignment for a case study. We also include a sensitivity analysis of spatial detail such as node density and link characteristics. Although the road network generation algorithm requires manipulation of many input parameters to create desired road networks, and variation between outputs is a concern, the method still offers considerable improvement over manual methods, especially for applications in strategic planning, and appears to be suitable for all types of topography and road standards.

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 score0.708
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations54
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207