Improving the decision-making process by considering supply uncertainty – a case study in the forest value chain
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Planning decisions are generally subject to some level of uncertainty. In forestry, data describing the resources available have a major impact on operations performance and productivity. This paper aims to present a method to improve decision-making in the forest supply chain by taking supply uncertainty into account using the results of data quality assessments. The case study describes the operations planning process of a Canadian forest products company dealing with an uncertain volume of wood supply. Three approaches to constructing probability distributions based on data quality are tested. Each approach offers a different level of precision: (1) a frequency distribution of accuracy, (2) a normal distribution based on average accuracy, and (3) a normal distribution based on data quality classification. Using stochastic programming to plan transport and production shows that lower costs can be achieved with a general characterisation of the data accuracy. Not considering uncertainty when planning operations leads to a significant replanning transportation cost. Using classes of data quality to include uncertainty in operations planning contributes to reducing the transportation cost from $15.90/m3 down to $15.32/m3 representing 3.6%.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 it