MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2170796364 · doi:10.1139/x08-126

Applying ant colony optimization metaheuristic to solve forest transportation planning problems with side constraints

2008· article· en· W2170796364 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marco A. Contreras, Woodam Chung, Greg Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnt colony optimization algorithmsSolverMetaheuristicMathematical optimizationComputer scienceHeuristicInteger programmingComputationConstraint (computer-aided design)AlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forest transportation planning problems (FTPP) have evolved from considering only the financial aspects of timber management to more holistic problems that also consider the environmental impacts of roads. These additional requirements have introduced side constraints, making FTPP larger and more complex. Mixed-integer programming (MIP) has been used to solve FTPP, but its application has been limited by the difficulty of solving large, real-world problems within a reasonable time. To overcome this limitation of MIP, we applied the ant colony optimization (ACO) metaheuristic to develop an ACO-based heuristic algorithm that efficiently solves large and complex forest transportation problems with side constraints. Three hypothetical FTPP were created to test the performance of the ACO algorithm. The environmental impact of forest roads represented by sediment yields was incorporated into the economic analysis of roads as a side constraint. Four different levels of sediment constraints were analyzed for each problem. The solutions from the ACO algorithm were compared with those obtained from a commercially available MIP solver. The ACO solutions were equal to or slightly worse than the MIP solution, but the ACO algorithm took only a fraction of the computation time that was required by the MIP solver.

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)0.003
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations29
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicForest Management and Policy→French-language works237,207→