MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965979685 · doi:10.1002/net.21519

The split delivery capacitated team orienteering problem

2013· article· en· W1965979685 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

VenueNetworks · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Routing Optimization Methods
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalGroup for Research in Decision AnalysisHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrienteeringComputer scienceOperations researchProfit (economics)Mathematical optimizationSet (abstract data type)Benchmark (surveying)MathematicsEconomicsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this article, we study the capacitated team orienteering problem where split deliveries are allowed. A set of potential customers is given, each associated with a demand and a profit. The set of customers to be served by a fleet of capacitated vehicles has to be identified in such a way that the profit collected is maximized, while satisfying constraints on the maximum time duration of each route and the vehicle capacity constraints. When split deliveries are allowed, each customer may be served by more than one vehicle. We show that the profit collected by allowing split deliveries may be as large as twice the profit collected under the constraint that each customer has to be served by one vehicle at most. We then present a branch‐and‐price exact algorithm and a hybrid heuristic. We show the effectiveness of the proposed approaches on benchmark instances and on a new set of instances that allow us to computationally evaluate the impact of split deliveries. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. NETWORKS, Vol. 63(1), 16–33 2014

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 score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.191 · 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