MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099189023 · doi:10.1002/nav.20471

The quay crane scheduling problem with time windows

2011· article· en· W2099189023 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) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaritime Ports and Logistics
Canadian institutionsCenter for Interuniversity Research and Analysis on Organizations
FundersDeutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst
KeywordsComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)Operations researchJob shop schedulingHeuristicOperations managementEngineeringArtificial intelligenceOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The quay crane scheduling problem consists of scheduling tasks for loading and unloading containers on cranes that are assigned to a vessel for its service. This article introduces a new approach for quay crane scheduling, where the availability of cranes at a vessel is restricted to certain time windows. The problem is of practical relevance, because container terminal operators frequently redeploy cranes among vessels to speed up the service of high-priority vessels while serving low-priority vessels casually. This article provides a mathematical formulation of the problem and a tree-search-based heuristic solution method. A computational investigation on a large set of test instances is used to evaluate the performance of the heuristic and to identify the impact of differently structured crane time windows on the achievable vessel handling time. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Naval Research Logistics, 2011

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)0.001
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 score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.703

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.207 · 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