Optimized locations of landings in forest operations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, increasing attention has been drawn to improving productivity in logging passages while reducing negative impact on soil and water. The position of landings and extraction routes is crucial in these efforts, as it has a huge impact on efficient and sustainable forwarder passages. In this paper, we propose a two-phase approach to identify the best possible landing locations integrated with log extraction route design. The first phase identifies potential landing zones adjacent to forest roads. It considers practical restrictions such as slopes, stoniness, and closeness to infrastructure. The second phase uses an optimization model to evaluate the potential impact of each zone and aggregate zones, selecting one or two complete landings. This model is a relaxation of a formulation for an extraction route design; it is used to minimize a weighted objective of the total driving distance, avoid steep terrains and impact on soil and water. The proposed approach has been tested on a set of harvest areas in southern Sweden. The results not only show the potential to identify feasible landing zones but also identify a shorter driving distance and hence lower contractual cost with optimized positioning. The possibility to increase efficiency in forest operations by performing scenario analysis and thus forwarding distances with different landing sites is among the results.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".