MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3019520106 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2019-0380

Integrated forest harvest planning and road-building model with consideration of economies of scale

2020· article· en· W3019520106 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Azadeh Mobtaker, Julio Montecinos, Mustapha Ouhimmou, Mikael Rönnqvist

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTime horizonContext (archaeology)Scale (ratio)Forest roadPlan (archaeology)MillEconomies of scaleTransport engineeringFlow networkTotal costInteger programmingOperations researchEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceBusinessEngineeringForestryGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the problem of tactical forest management over a 5-year horizon with yearly periods. The main decisions made consider which harvest areas to cut in each period, the flow of timber from an area to each wood-processing mill to satisfy its annual demand, and which roads to build to access a harvest area not connected to the existing road network. The goal is to minimize the total transportation and road-building costs subject to budget limitations. To explore the benefits of economies of scale (EOS) in road construction, we incorporated this notion in the proposed model. Then, the efficiency of the obtained solution is compared with the model without EOS. The proposed model is a mixed-integer linear program, including several timber assortments and multiple periods. We validated the model for a realistic case in the context of the province of Quebec. The results demonstrate that consideration of EOS significantly reduces the total cost by about 5.3%. In the EOS solution, the road segments that are built every year are very concentrated in specific parts of the region, allowing a road-building company to take advantage of EOS. Moreover, this solution provides a much more efficient timber transportation plan.

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)0.001
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 score0.291
Threshold uncertainty score0.579

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Biomass Utilization and ManagementFrench-language works237,207