MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2395735112 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2015-0329

A climate change adaptive dynamic programming approach to optimize eucalypt stand management scheduling: a Portuguese application

2016· article· en· W2395735112 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Liliana Ferreira, Miguel Constantino, José G. Borges, Jordi García-Gonzalo, Susana Barreiro

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaFP7 People: Marie-Curie ActionsEuropean Commission
KeywordsTime horizonClimate changeCoppicingForest managementEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceEnvironmental resource managementAgroforestryMathematicsMathematical optimizationEcologyWoody plant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this paper is to present approaches to optimize stand-level, short-rotation coppice management planning, taking into account uncertainty in stand growth due to climate change. The focus is on addressing growth uncertainty through a range of climate scenarios so that an adaptive capacity may be possible and the vulnerability of the stand to climate change may be reduced. The optimization encompasses finding both the harvest age in each cycle and the number of coppice cycles within a full rotation that maximize net present revenue. The innovation lies in the combination of the process-based model (Glob3PG) with two dynamic programming (DP) approaches. The former is able to project growth of eucalypt stands under climate change scenarios. The innovative approaches are thus influential to define the management policy (e.g., stool thinning, number of coppice cycles, and cycle length) that maximizes net present revenue taking into account uncertainty in forest growth due to climate change. In both approaches, the state of the system is defined by the number of years since plantation, whereas DP stages are defined by the cumulative number of harvests. The first approach proposes the optimal policy under each climate change scenario at each state. The second approach addresses further situations when the climate scenario is unknown at the beginning of the planning horizon. Both help address uncertainty in an adaptive framework, as a set of readily available options is proposed for each scenario. Results of an application to a typical Eucalyptus globulus Labill. stand in central Portugal are discussed.

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)0.002
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score0.755

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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