Planning of municipal solid waste management under dual uncertainties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Municipal solid waste management is a complex and multidisciplinary problem, involving a number of impact factors associated with various uncertainties. In this study, a hybrid interval-parameter possibilistic programming (IPP) approach was developed and applied for planning municipal solid waste management under dual uncertainties. The IPP improves upon the existing management approaches by allowing possibility distributions of the lower and upper bounds of some interval parameters in the objective function and interval information in the modelling coefficients to be effectively incorporated within its optimization. By introducing the concept of possibilistic interval numbers, the dual uncertainties can be communicated into the optimization process and the resulting solutions, such that the generated decision schemes can effectively reflect the highly complex system features under uncertainty. The results of the case study indicate that useful information can be obtained for providing feasible decision schemes for waste flow allocation. Different decision schemes can be generated by adjusting waste flow allocation patterns within the solution intervals. Lower decision variable values should be used to obtain lower system cost of waste treatment and disposal under advantageous conditions, and higher decision variable values should be used under demanding conditions (worst case conditions). A strong desire to acquire the lower system cost will lead to the decreased probability of meeting the treatment and disposal requirements (i.e. the increased risk of unforeseen conditions); willingness to accept the upper limit of the system cost will guarantee that waste treatment and disposal requirements are met.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".