Solution approaches to reduce problems with unbalanced supply and demand in transportation and harvest planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study addresses forestry planning challenges arising from supply-demand imbalances. In forest planning, supply often exceeds demand because supplies are known in advance, while demands are known more short term when ordered. This leads to so-called “creaming,” where forest planners select nearby areas first. With static supply and incremental demand information, average transportation distance increases over the planning horizon. To mitigate this, we propose an approach to artificially balance supply and demand. This can be achieved by including additional time periods with additional demand making up the factual difference. We evaluate three planning approaches to model the extended demand, varying the number of time periods and extension duration. Through simulations, we compare these approaches to traditional methods and theoretical solutions. Our proposed approach aims to better keep the average distance balanced throughout the overall planning periods. It ensures that average transportation distances are not excessively favorable in the initial periods, nor unreasonably high in the later periods, resulting in a favorable equilibrium in the average transportation distance over time. It makes sure that we do not need the additional truck capacity at certain times. We assess our proposed approaches using a case study from a Swedish forestry company, demonstrating their superiority over current practices.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".