MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129828643 · doi:10.1287/trsc.1120.0417

Long-Haul Vehicle Routing and Scheduling with Working Hour Rules

2012· article· en· W2129828643 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

VenueTransportation Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Routing Optimization Methods
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTabu searchVehicle routing problemScheduling (production processes)TRIPS architectureOperations researchComputer scienceTransport engineeringTruckJob shop schedulingEngineeringRouting (electronic design automation)Operations managementComputer networkAutomotive engineeringAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Long-haul carriers must comply with various safety rules which are rarely taken into account in models and algorithms for vehicle routing problems. In this paper, we consider the rules on truck driver safety during long-haul trips in the United States. The problem under study has two dominant features: a routing component that consists of determining the sequence of customers visited by each vehicle and a scheduling component that consists of planning the rest periods and the service time of each customer. We have developed different scheduling algorithms embedded within a tabu search heuristic. The overall solution methods were tested on modified Solomon instances, and the computational results confirm the benefits of using a sophisticated scheduling procedure when planning long-haul transportation.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.244 · 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