MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1577604213 · doi:10.1002/9781118492185.ch3

Locating Facilities in Logistics Systems

2013· other· en· W1577604213 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Manufacturing and Logistics Optimization
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Facility location problems deal with the number, position, equipment and size of new facilities, as well as the divestment, displacement or downsizing of existing facilities. In business logistics, the location planning process consists of designing the set of facilities through which commodities flow from suppliers to demand points, whereas in the public sector it consists of determining the set of facilities from which users are serviced. This chapter examines some of the most important facility location problems. To put this analysis in the right perspective, it introduces and discusses a number of relevant issues. The chapter illustrates some quantitative methods to tackle the most relevant location problems arising both in business and in service logistics systems. Hybrid methods share some of the distinguished features of qualitative and quantitative location methods. Controlled Vocabulary Terms Management and planning tools; Process management

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.

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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.476
Threshold uncertainty score0.626

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.184 · 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