MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041525256 · doi:10.1139/l03-006

Constraint-based genetic algorithm for earthmoving fleet selection

2003· article· en· W2041525256 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohamed Marzouk, Osama Moselhi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTournament selectionCrossoverGenetic algorithmComputer scienceNormalization (sociology)Selection (genetic algorithm)Fitness proportionate selectionAlgorithmRouletteRanking (information retrieval)Context (archaeology)ChromosomeMathematical optimizationFitness functionArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a constraint-based genetic algorithm dedicated to optimizing earthmoving operations. The algorithm aims to minimize the total cost of earthmoving operations, accounting for efficient use of the selected equipment fleet. Total cost, duration, and utilization of the equipment fleets involved are estimated via computer simulation and passed to the developed algorithm to optimize fleet selection. Users specify the lower limits of equipment utilization as constraints that guide the algorithm search. The developed algorithm has powerful features: (i) it runs in canonical and genitor forms and (ii) it allows normalization of fitness values of chromosomes using three methods, namely inversion, linear ranking, and nonlinear ranking normalization. The algorithm supports roulette wheel and tournament methods for random selection of chromosomes. Crossover can be applied in a discrete or arithmetic form. In addition, the algorithm performs its computations in an efficient manner by elite best-fit chromosome in all generations and by storing chromosome information in its database. The proposed algorithm is explained in the context of a numerical example to clarify its useful features.Key words: earthmoving, equipment selection, optimization, genetic algorithms, computer simulation.

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 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.525

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.168
Teacher spread0.163 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations14
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207