MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Locating Facilities in the Presence of Disruptions and Incomplete Information*

2009· article· en· W2015373424 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

VenueDecision Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFacility Location and Emergency Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFacility location problemReliability (semiconductor)Computer scienceOperations researchDecision makerSet (abstract data type)Information systemValue of informationComplete informationTotal costDecompositionOperations managementBusinessEconomicsMathematicsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT In this article, we analyze a location model where facilities may be subject to disruptions. Customers do not have advance information about whether a given facility is operational or not, and thus may have to visit several facilities before finding an operational one. The objective is to locate a set of facilities to minimize the total expected cost of customer travel. We decompose the total cost into travel, reliability, and information components. This decomposition allows us to put a value on the advance information about the states of facilities and compare it to the reliability and travel cost components, which allows a decision maker to evaluate which part of the system would benefit the most from improvements. The structure of optimal solutions is analyzed, with two interesting effects identified: facility centralization and co‐location; both effects appear to be stronger than in the complete information case, where the status of each facility is known in advance.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score0.211

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.242 · 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