MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983418768 · doi:10.5555/1030818.1031048

Simulation planning and rostering: a discrete event simulation for the crew assignment process in north american freight railroads

2003· article· en· W1983418768 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueWinter Simulation Conference · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicSimulation Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsCanadian Pacific Railway (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrewScheduleDiscrete event simulationCrew schedulingProcess (computing)Operations researchSoftwareComputer scienceEvent (particle physics)Simulation softwareTransport engineeringGovernment (linguistics)EngineeringAeronauticsSimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces a discrete event simulation for crew assignments and crew movements as a result of train traffic, labor rules, government regulations and optional crew schedules. The software is part of a schedule development system, FRCOS (Freight Rail Crew Optimization System), that was co-developed by Canadian National (CN) Rail and Circadian Technologies, Inc. The simulation allows verification of the impact of changes to trainflow, labor rules or government regulations on the overall operational efficiency of how crews are called to work. The system helps to evaluate changes to current crew assignments and can test new crew assignment scenarios such as crew schedules. Potential problems can be detected before the actual implementation, saving unnecessary costs. The software is also used to assess the impact of traffic changes on existing crew schedules in order to implement reactive corrections to these schedules.

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)0.002
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 score0.717
Threshold uncertainty score0.736

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.293 · 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