Catastrophe Avoidance Models for Hazardous Materials Route Planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most-widely used definition of risk in the hazardous materials transportation literature is the expected consequence of an incident (accident resulting in a release), which, for each edge of the network, is equal to the product of the incident probability and a quantifiable consequence (such as number of people evacuated). This definition ignores the risk-averse attitudes of many decision-makers when dealing with low probability/high consequence events. We suggest that avoiding a catastrophe (an incident with a very large consequence) may be a relevant issue in routing hazardous materials, and we introduce three different catastrophe-avoidance models. In the first model, catastrophe avoidance is achieved by minimizing the maximum population exposure. In the second model, the variance of the route consequence is incorporated into the decision. In the third model, an explicit disutility function is used. We show that all three models reduce to a standard shortest path problem. Each model avoids high-population areas of the transport network. We give numerical examples and discuss the similarities and the differences among the three models. The first of the three models suggested may be the most intuitive, and is the most tractable computationally. Implementation of the other two models may be difficult due to scaling issues. Nevertheless, these models offer theoretical insight that may be valuable to researchers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".