Optimal Planning of Wood Harvesting and Timber Supply in Russian Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes an approach to the optimal planning of wood harvesting and timber supply for forest companies of Russia. Software and tools successfully used in other countries (e.g., Finland, Sweden, Canada, etc.) are not as effective in Russian conditions for a number of reasons. This calls for the development of an original approach to solve this problem with respect to Russia’s specific conditions. The main factors affecting the operation of wood harvesting companies in Russia were determined. The optimization problem was formulated taking into account all important features of wood harvesting specific to the country. The mathematical model of the problem was formulated and analyzed. An important requirement is that the solution algorithm should find high-quality plans within short computation times. The original problem was reduced to a block linear programming problem of large dimension, for which an effective numerical solution method was proposed. It is based on the multiplicative simplex method with column generation within Dantzig–Wolfe decomposition and uses heuristics to determine feasible solutions based on the branch and bound method. We tested the solution approach on real production data from a forest company in southern Karelia with a planning horizon up to a year. This case study involved 198 sites and 14 machines harvesting up to 200,000 cubic meters from an available stock volume of about 300,000 cubic meters. An increase in profit by 5% to 10% was observed, measured as revenue from the sale of products, net of harvesting and transportation costs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".