Scheduling of forest harvesting operations on multiple cut blocks using multi-task machines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The modernization of forest harvesting operations has significantly increased the cost of machine ownership and has turned forest harvesting into a capital-intensive process. To increase productivity and profitability, some companies have acquired multi-task harvesting machines. While many previous papers focused on optimizing the harvest scheduling to reduce the costs of harvesting, the assignment of multi-task machines was not considered in their models. In this work, an optimization model is developed for the detailed scheduling of harvesting activities on multiple cut blocks using multi-task machines. This model is a continuation of previous work on detailed harvest scheduling. It prescribes the start time and the end time of operations of each machine at each cut block, the number of machines to be assigned for each harvesting activity at each cut block, the cut block that the machine should move to after completing its operation at a cut block, and the type of activity it should perform. It is applied to a case study of a forest company in Canada. According to the results, the total harvesting cost decreased by Can$ 25,000 when multi-task machines were used compared to exclusive machines, due to less machine movement and the need for fewer machines.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".