Selecting wood supply contracts under uncertainty using stochastic programming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A large portion of expenses in the forest industries is associated with wood supply procurement. Numerous suppliers are involved and securing wood supply contracts with competitive prices is a constant challenge for procurement managers. A major difficulty is the procurement exposure to various sourcing risks including the start of the spring thaw, contract breach, or unreliability of suppliers. A procurement plan should anticipate random events and include measures that counter their negative impact. Recourse actions must be planned by considering volume uncertainty and wood price fluctuations. Relying on manual tools is hardly capable of considering all aspects of this problem. A stochastic programming approach is proposed to support the development of a procurement plan. In this model, several types of contracts including fixed, flexible and option contracts with different durations are included. The proposed selection of contracts from a stochastic programming model yields average optimality in the presence of plausible scenarios. The developed two-stage stochastic programming model decides on the selection of the optimal portfolio of contracts to minimize total procurement costs. Based on a case study in Quebec, an average saving of 4% was shown by using stochastic programming compared to the deterministic approach.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".