MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026533796 · doi:10.1002/net.21529

Incomplete service and split deliveries in a routing problem with profits

2013· article· en· W2026533796 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
KeywordsOrienteeringHeuristicsComputer scienceVehicle routing problemMathematical optimizationOperations researchProfit (economics)Constraint (computer-aided design)Service (business)Routing (electronic design automation)MathematicsBusinessComputer networkEconomicsMicroeconomicsMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this article, we study a variant of the capacitated team orienteering problem, that is the problem where a fleet of vehicles, each with a constraint on the time available, is given to serve profitable customers with the objective of maximizing the collected profit. We study the variant where customers may be only partially served (incomplete service) and, if beneficial, also by more than one vehicle (split deliveries). We will analyze the maximum theoretical increase of the profit due to the incomplete service and to the split deliveries. We also computationally measure such increase on a set of instances, by means of an exact algorithm on small/medium size instances and of two heuristics on instances of larger size. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. NETWORKS, Vol. 63(2), 135–145 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.449

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.189 · 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