Route selection for best distances in road databases based on drivers’ and customers’ preferences
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of road databases for distance calculations and route selection is increasing. One reason is that payments and invoicing are often based on the distance driven. However, it can be hard to agree on a “best” distance because of drivers’ preferences. These preferences can be described by road features such as road length, quality, width, speed limits, etc. Moreover, a pure standard “shortest path”, which is often used in road databases, can result in a route that is considerably shorter than a preferred and agreed distance. Consequently, there is a need to find suitable weights for the features of the roads that provide fair and agreed distances at the same time for all users. We propose an approach to find values of such weights for the features. The optimization model to find weights is an inverse shortest path problem formulated in a mixed integer programming model. The approach is tested for the Swedish Forestry National Road database. Since 2010, it has been in daily use to establish distances and is available for all forestry companies and haulers in Sweden through an online system.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it