Bibliographic record
Abstract
<title>Abstract</title> Poor bucking decisions made by forest harvesters can have a negative effect on the products that are generated from the logs. Making the right bucking decisions is not an easy task because harvesters must rely on predictions of the stem profile for the part of the stems that is not yet measured. The goal of this project is to improve the bucking decisions made by forest harvesters with a stochastic bucking method. We developed a Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) neural network that predicted the parameters of a Gaussian distribution conditioned on the known part of the stem, enabling the creation of multiple samples of stem profile predictions for the unknown part of the stem. The bucking decisions could then be optimized using a novel stochastic bucking algorithm which used all the stem profiles generated to choose the logs to generate from the stem. The stochastic bucking algorithm was compared to two benchmark models: A polynomial model that could not condition its predictions on more than one diameter measurement, and a deterministic LSTM neural network. All models were evaluated on stem profiles of four coniferous species prevalent in eastern Canada. In general, the best bucking decisions were taken by the stochastic LSTM models, demonstrating the usefulness of the method. The second-best results were mostly obtained by the deterministic LSTM model and the worst results by the polynomial model, corroborating the usefulness of conditioning the stem curve predictions on multiple measurements.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".