MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963745567 · doi:10.1002/atr.5670430205

A multiobjective model for maximizing fleet availability under the presence of flight and maintenance requirements

2009· article· en· W1963745567 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 · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Routing Optimization Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersState Scholarships Foundation
KeywordsHeuristicsAircraft maintenanceOperations researchHeuristicUnit (ring theory)Computer scienceEngineeringReliability engineeringAeronauticsArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Every aircraft, military or civilian, must be grounded for maintenance after it has completed a certain number of flight hours since its last maintenance check. In this paper, we address the problem of deciding which available aircraft should fly and for how long, and which grounded aircraft should perform maintenance operations, in a group of aircraft that comprise a combat unit. The objective is to achieve maximum availability of the unit over the planning horizon. We develop a multiobjective optimization model for this problem, and we illustrate its application and solution on a real life instance drawn from the Hellenic Air Force. We also propose two heuristic approaches for solving large scale instances of the problem. We conclude with a discussion that gives insight into the behavior of the model and of the heuristics, based on the analysis of the results obtained.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.412
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.270 · 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