MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134962356 · doi:10.3141/1884-05

Fleet Size and Mix Optimization for Paratransit Services

2004· article· en· W2134962356 on OpenAlexafffund
Liping Fu, Gary Ishkhanov

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsParatransitService (business)Fleet managementTransport engineeringProcess (computing)HeuristicComputer scienceOperations researchEngineeringBusinessPublic transportMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most paratransit agencies use a mix of different types of vehicles ranging from small sedans to large converted vans as a cost-effective way to meet the diverse travel needs and seating requirements of their clients. Currently, decisions on what types of vehicles and how many vehicles to use are mostly made by service managers on an ad hoc basis without much systematic analysis and optimization. The objective of this research is to address the underlying fleet size and mix problem and to develop a practical procedure that can be used to determine the optimal fleet mix for a given application. A real-life example illustrates the relationship between the performance of a paratransit service system and the size of its service vehicles. A heuristic procedure identifies the optimal fleet mix that maximizes the operating efficiency of a service system. A set of recommendations is offered for future research; the most important is the need to incorporate a life-cycle cost framework into the paratransit service planning process.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicTransportation and Mobility InnovationsFrench-language works237,207