MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109322256 · doi:10.1139/x06-051

Determining optimal road class and road deactivation strategies using dynamic programming

2006· article· en· W2109322256 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A. Anderson, John D. Nelson, Robert G. D’Eon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForest roadDynamic programmingTotal costUpgradeTime horizonTransport engineeringFlow networkClass (philosophy)Operations researchEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceEngineeringMathematicsGeographyBusinessMathematical optimizationForestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forest managers are faced with complicated road construction and deactivation decisions. When construction, upgrading, and deactivation strategies must be determined simultaneously over broad spatial and temporal scales, the problem becomes very complex and decision support systems are needed. In this paper, we report the development and application of an optimal road class and deactivation model using dynamic programming. We tested our model on projected road networks on Hardwicke Island, British Columbia. Sensitivity of inputs such as construction costs, upgrade costs, hauling and maintenance costs, deactivation costs, length of time horizon, discount rate, and haul volume were tested within and between two road networks. Comparison of road networks revealed that haul volume concentration, average haul distance, and total road length are the most important variables that affect road class decisions and total network costs. Within our case study, the road network with the lowest average hauling distance resulted in the lowest total cost (CAN$0.24/m 3 less), because hauling costs are the largest component (46%) of total transportation costs. The dynamic programming model can be used to assess numerous road construction and maintenance assumptions under various silviculture and harvest systems.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.418
Threshold uncertainty score0.871

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Biomass Utilization and ManagementFrench-language works237,207