A goal programming model for the optimization of log logistics considering sorting decisions and social objective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Log logistics include sorting, processing, and transporting of logs from their place of harvest to demand locations. These activities account for a significant portion of the total log procurement costs; therefore, attempts were made in previous studies to optimize some aspects of log logistics. However, operational details, such as sorting decisions, truck compatibility requirements, and social objectives, are often disregarded in the optimization literature. Incorporating these details into the model makes the results more realistic and applicable. To address these gaps, a bi-objective mixed-integer programming model is developed in this paper to optimize log logistics. The first objective is to minimize total logistics costs, and the second objective is to provide a balanced workload for trucking contractors. The bi-objective model is solved using the goal programming approach. The model is applied to log logistics of a large Canadian forest company, where trucking contractors use heterogeneous fleet of trucks to carry various log sorts from cutblocks to sort yards for sorting. The planning horizon is 4 weeks with daily decisions. The goal programming model generates balanced workloads for the contractors with less than 0.4% increase in total costs compared to the single objective model where only the total cost is minimized.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".