Meta optimization of stand management with population-based methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The amount of different products and services obtained from forests depends on several management decisions such as thinning years, thinning intensity, thinning type, and rotation length. The relationships between management actions and the various outputs obtained from forests are complicated. This makes stand management optimization challenging, especially if the number of simultaneously maximized outputs and the number of optimized variables are high. The direct search method of Hooke and Jeeves (HJ) has been used much in stand management optimization. In recent years, population-based methods have been proposed as an alternative to the HJ method. The performance of a population-based method depends on its parameters such as number iterations and population size (number of solution vectors used in the population-based method). This study used two-level meta optimization to simultaneously optimize the parameters of a population-based method and the management schedule of a stand. Four population-based methods were analysed: differential evolution (DE), particle swarm optimization (PS), evolution strategy optimization (ES), and the method of Nelder and Mead (NM). With optimal parameter values, DE and PS found the best stand management schedules, followed by ES and NM. DE and PS performed better than HJ. Therefore, DE and PS should be used more in forest management and their search algorithms should be further developed.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".