MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415093962 · doi:10.31223/x55r1x

WS3: An open-source Python framework for integrated simulation and optimization of forest landscape and wood supply systems

2025· preprint· en· W4415093962 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Gregory Paradis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBritish Columbia Knowledge Development FundNatural Resources CanadaEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsPython (programming language)Raster graphicsModular designScheduling (production processes)Carbon stockStock (firearms)TaigaSpatial analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transparent decision support for forest landscapes demands integrated scheduling, carbon account-ing, and spatial reporting. WS3 is an open-source Python framework that unifies modular simu-lation, solver-backed Model I optimization, and raster allocation in a single workflow. The systemingests Woodstock-style inventories, actions, and scenarios; exposes an explicit data model; andautomates spatial/aspatial conversions. Native linkage to the Canadian Forest Service CarbonBudget Model (libCBM) provides carbon stock and flux estimation for Canada and other libCBM-calibrated jurisdictions. We document the architecture, mathematical formulation, and reproduciblecase studies that pair optimization-driven harvest scheduling with libCBM and spatial allocationto illustrate policy trade-offs in harvest flows, carbon dynamics, and disturbance footprints. WS3ships with an open reproduction package, documentation, and Zenodo-archived releases that ensuredeterministic builds of figures, tables, and parity tests. The framework lowers barriers to auditable,climate-aware forest planning for researchers, agencies, and practitioners.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.828

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicForest Biomass Utilization and ManagementFrench-language works237,207