MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dynamic Evacuation Routing Plan after an Earthquake

2015· article· en· W1997154344 on OpenAlexaff
Elham Pourrahmani, M. R. Delavar, Parham Pahlavani, Mir Abolfazl Mostafavi

Bibliographic record

VenueNatural Hazards Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEvacuation and Crowd Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersUniversity of Tehran
KeywordsRouting (electronic design automation)Computer sciencePlan (archaeology)Transport engineeringSimulated annealingOperations researchComputer networkEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study proposes an earthquake evacuation routing plan from local shelters to regional ones for a long-term safe settlement using public vehicles. In a post-earthquake situation, the unpredicted changes in travel demand patterns and accessibility conditions of the transportation network affect the travel time. The contribution of this study is to propose a dynamic evacuation routing approach that can update the routing plan by incorporating time-dependent travel times. The problem is modeled as a vehicle routing problem and a two-stage solution procedure based on the simulated annealing algorithm is developed. The model is applied in part of Tehran’s transportation network. The results confirm that the dynamic evacuation routing approach is able to increase the number of evacuated shelters and decrease both the evacuation time and total travel time of the vehicles. The findings in this study indicate that the application of the proposed model can provide beneficial information for disaster management.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNatural Hazards ReviewSame topicEvacuation and Crowd DynamicsFrench-language works237,207