Behavior and assessment of mobile anchors in cable yarding systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cable yarding systems transport logs hoisted off the ground by a system of cables and a carriage that moves along the cable. Ground anchors are used at the end points to maintain sufficient tension between the two ends points of the cable and keep it in the air during operation. Traditional anchoring methods employ tree stumps, but as shorter stand rotations result in younger weaker stumps and because of the inability to visually inspect root structures to calculate a stump’s anchoring capacity, alternative methods of anchoring are being used more frequently. In this paper, the capacity of an alternative anchoring method, known as equipment anchoring or mobile anchoring, is assessed for guyline and skyline applications. Some critical components that are observed to influence anchor capacity are equipment weight, slope, blade embedment, angle of cable pull, and soil type. An analytical design solution for mobile anchor capacity is compared with the results of over two dozen field tests to determine the effectiveness of predicting anchor capacity. In addition to estimating the capacity of mobile anchors, a relationship between skyline and guyline loading recorded on harvest operations is analyzed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".