Balancing equity and efficiency of goal programming for use in forest management planning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developing forest management plans from a multicriteria perspective requires the decision maker to state preferences regarding the criteria and their importance. This article demonstrates the feasibility of merging the weighted goal programming formulation and the minimax goal programming formulation as a means to provide the decision maker the opportunity to decide which goals are to be treated in a weighted goal programming (the efficient solution) manner or in a minimax goal programming (the equitable solution) manner. The combination of these two goal planning variants is done through partitioning the criteria into sets to be treated by the different variants. The two methods proposed in this paper assign different criteria to a set where the balance of the achievements is desired or to a different set where the maximum aggregated achievement is desired. The first method is designed to create alternative plans, based only on the assignment of criteria to different partitions. The second method requires that the decision maker has a clear understanding of how he/she wishes to deal with each criterion. The functionality of these methods of goal planning is shown with an example derived from a forest management planning situation.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 it