MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1895919608 · doi:10.1002/atr.1333

A case study of Beijing bus crew scheduling: a variable neighborhood‐based approach

2015· article· en· W1895919608 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Routing Optimization Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeijingCrew schedulingCrewScheduling (production processes)Computer scienceVariable (mathematics)Transport engineeringOperations researchEngineeringAeronauticsOperations managementMathematicsGeographyChina

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Crew scheduling for bus drivers in large bus agencies is known to be a time‐consuming and cumbersome problem in transit operations planning. This paper investigates a new meta‐heuristics approach for solving real‐world bus‐driver scheduling problems. The drivers' work is represented as a series of successive pieces of work with time windows, and a variable neighborhood search (VNS) algorithm is employed to solve the problem of driver scheduling. Examination of the modeling procedure developed is performed by a case study of two depots of the Beijing Public Transport Group, one of the largest transit companies in the world. The results show that a VNS‐based algorithm can reduce total driver costs by up to 18.1%, implying that the VNS algorithm may be regarded as a good optimization technique to solve the bus‐driver scheduling problem. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.251 · 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