MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Heuristics for the location of inspection stations on a network

2000· article· en· W2095338002 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

VenueNaval Research Logistics (NRL) · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFacility Location and Emergency Management
Canadian institutionsImperial Oil (Canada)HEC MontréalUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeuristicsTabu searchHeuristicComputer scienceMathematical optimizationPath (computing)Flow networkGreedy algorithmReduction (mathematics)Operations researchArtificial intelligenceMathematicsAlgorithmComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article considers the preventive flow interception problem (FIP) on a network. Given a directed network with known origin-destination path flows, each generating a certain amount of risk, the preventive FIP consists of optimally locating m facilities on the network in order to maximize the total risk reduction. A greedy search heuristic as well as several variants of an ascent search heuristic and of a tabu search heuristic are presented for the FIP. Computational results indicate that the best versions of the latter heuristics consistently produce optimal or near optimal solutions on test problems. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Naval Research Logistics 47: 287–303, 2000

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.587

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.192
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.192 · 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