MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152306358 · doi:10.1287/inte.30.6.32.11625

The Québec Ministry of Natural Resources Uses Linear Programming to Understand the Wood-Fiber Market

2000· article· en· W2152306358 on OpenAlexaffabout
Antoine Gautier, Bernard F. Lamond, Daniel J. Paré, François Rouleau

Bibliographic record

VenueINFORMS Journal on Applied Analytics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts (Québec)Université Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChristian ministryGovernment (linguistics)NegotiationLinear programmingNatural resourceIndustrial organizationFiberYield (engineering)BusinessComputer scienceEnvironmental economicsEconomicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In spring 1996, Québec's Ministry of Natural Resources began using a descriptive mathematical programming model to support various negotiations in the wood-fiber markets. The model, which uses linear programming to solve an economic-equilibrium program, allows the representative of the ministry to come to industry roundtables with accurate scenario analyses for the wood-fiber market. The tool we developed and implemented uses the large amounts of data available to government agencies to foresee and explain the general economic trends facing both lumber and paper producers. During its development, our team of operations-research experts, economists, engineers, and civil servants developed an unprecedented understanding of the wood-fiber market. The ministry incorporated these insights in subsequent government policy aimed at improving sawmill yield and stabilizing market behavior.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations7
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueINFORMS Journal on Applied AnalyticsSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207