MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107686563 · doi:10.1002/net.21549

Cooperative covering problems on networks

2014· article· en· W2107686563 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 · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFacility Location and Emergency Management
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeuristicsMathematical optimizationInteger programmingLinear programmingSIGNAL (programming language)Facility location problemSignal strengthComputer sciencePiecewiseSet (abstract data type)Piecewise linear functionPoint (geometry)PolynomialFunction (biology)AlgorithmMathematicsWireless sensor network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we consider the cooperative maximum covering location problem on a network. In this model, it is assumed that each facility emits a certain “signal” whose strength decays over distance according to some “signal strength function.” A demand point is covered if the total signal transmitted from all the facilities exceeds a predefined threshold. The problem is to locate facilities so as to maximize the total demand covered. For the 2‐facility problem, we present efficient polynomial algorithms for the cases of linear and piecewise linear signal strength functions. For the p ‐facility problem, we develop a finite dominant set, a mixed‐integer programming formulation that can be used for small instances, and two heuristics that can be used for large instances. The heuristics use the exact algorithm for the 2‐facility case. We report results of computational experiments. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. NETWORKS, Vol. 63(4), 334–349 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.825

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.186 · 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