Improving the decision-making process by considering supply uncertainty – a case study in the forest value chain
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".