MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968350460 · doi:10.1287/trsc.1050.0120

Models and Tabu Search Heuristics for the Berth-Allocation Problem

2005· article· en· W1968350460 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaritime Ports and Logistics
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
FundersHEC MontréalUniversità della CalabriaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsTabu searchHeuristicsMathematical optimizationHeuristicScheduleComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)MinificationBranch and boundOperations researchMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the berth-allocation problem (BAP) the aim is to optimally schedule and assign ships to berthing areas along a quay. The objective is the minimization of the total (weighted) service time for all ships, defined as the time elapsed between the arrival in the harbor and the completion of handling. Two versions of the BAP are considered: the discrete case and the continuous case. The discrete case works with a finite set of berthing points. In the continuous case ships can berth anywhere along the quay. Two formulations and a tabu search heuristic are presented for the discrete case. Only small instances can be solved optimally. For these sizes the heuristic always yields an optimal solution. For larger sizes it is always better than a truncated branch-and-bound applied to an exact formulation. A heuristic is also developed for the continuous case. Computational comparisons are performed with the first heuristic and with a simple constructive procedure.

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 score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.231 · 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