MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2465300199 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2015-0468

Accounting for climate change in a forest planning stochastic optimization model

2016· article· en· W2465300199 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jordi García-Gonzalo, Cristóbal Pais, Joanna Bachmatiuk, Andrés Weintraub

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 TecnologiaComisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y TecnológicaInstituto de Sistemas Complejos de IngenieríaFP7 People: Marie-Curie ActionsEuropean Commission
KeywordsClimate changeTime horizonStochastic modellingEnvironmental scienceRange (aeronautics)Present valueForest managementGrowth modelAgroforestryEconomicsMathematicsEcologyStatisticsMathematical optimizationEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An approach is proposed for incorporating the variations in timber growth and yield due to climate change uncertainty into the forest harvesting decision process. A range of possible climate scenarios are transformed by a forest growth and yield model into tree growth scenarios, which in turn are integrated into a multistage stochastic model that determines the timber cut in each future period so as to maximize net present value over the planning horizon. For comparison purposes, a deterministic model using a single average climate scenario is also developed. The performance of the deterministic and stochastic formulations are tested in a case study of a medium-term forest planning problem for a Eucalyptus forest in Portugal where climate change is expected to severely impact production in the coming years. Experiments conducted using 32 climate scenarios demonstrate the stochastic model’s superior results in terms of present value, particularly in cases of relatively high minimum timber demand. The model should therefore be useful in supporting forest planners’ decisions under climate uncertainty.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score0.922

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 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

Citations23
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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