The key literature of, and trends in, forest-level management planning in North America, 1950–2001
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
SUMMARY An increase in the use of operations research techniques for forest-level planning, as expressed by publication of papers in peer-reviewed North American forestry journals, is illustrated by the number of papers published that describe a mathematical problem formulation, or model used, and demonstrates an application of the planning process. A shift in planning from a dependence on linear programming to heuristics is evidenced through the literature review, although linear programming and its derivatives continue to be used to demonstrate the development of strategic forest plans, plans without spatial components, or relaxed solutions to more complex forest planning problems. Initially, wood production and economic goals dominated the themes of journal articles, but just as the forest management environment has evolved to include an explicit recognition of non-timber goals, so have mathematical programming techniques evolved to support the development of forest plans with non-timber goals. Spatial components within forest planning processes have also increased dramatically in the last decade, as resource goals that key off of the juxtaposition of activities have become increasingly important. Finally, two North American forestry journals, the Canadian Journal of Forest Research and Forest Science, have become the predominant sources of forest-level planning literature that focuses on forest planning problem formulations and examples of the use of mathematical programming techniques in forest-level planning.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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