MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132734863 · doi:10.1139/x07-026

Hierarchical production planning in forestry using price-directed decomposition

2007· article· en· W2132734863 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Samuel D. Pittman, B. Bruce Bare, David Briggs

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecompositionForest managementColumn generationSet (abstract data type)Production planningLagrangian relaxationForest inventoryHierarchical database modelComputer scienceProduction (economics)Mathematical optimizationOperations researchMathematicsGeographyForestryEcologyEconomicsData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forest planning models have increased in size and complexity as planners address a growing array of economic, ecological, and societal issues. Hierarchical production models offer a means of better managing these large and complex models. Hierarchical production planning models decompose large models into a set of smaller linked models. For example, in this paper, a Lagrangian relaxation formulation and a modified Dantzig–Wolfe decomposition – column generation routine are used to solve a hierarchical forest planning model that maximizes the net present value of harvest incomes while recognizing specific geographical units that are subject to harvest flow and green-up constraints. This allows the planning model to consider forest-wide constraints such as harvest flow, as well as address separate subproblems for each contiguous management zone for which detailed spatial plans are computed. The approach taken in this paper is different from past approaches in forest hierarchical planning because we start with a single model and derive a hierarchical model that addresses integer subproblems using Dantzig–Wolfe decomposition. The decomposition approach is demonstrated by analyzing a set of randomly generated planning problems constructed from a large forest and land inventory data set.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations11
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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