MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139443691 · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1110.1399

Modeling Security-Check Queues

2011· article· en· W2139443691 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAdvanced Queuing Theory Analysis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Council
KeywordsStylized factComputer scienceQueueing theoryRobustness (evolution)QueueComputer security modelConvexityOperations researchComputer securityBusinessMathematicsComputer networkEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motivated by the waiting lines between the U.S.–Canadian border crossings, we investigate a security-check system with both security and customer service goals. In such a system, every customer has to be inspected by the first-stage inspector, but only a proportion of customers need to go through the second stage for further inspection. This “further inspection proportion,” affecting both security screening and the system congestion, becomes a key decision variable for the security-check system. Using a stylized two-stage queueing model, we established the convexity of the expected waiting cost function. With such a property, the optimal further inspection proportion can be determined to achieve the balance of the two goals and the service capacities can be classified into “security-favorable,” “security-unfavorable,” or “security-infeasible” categories. A specific capacity category implies if the security and customer service goals are consistent or in conflict. In addition, we have verified that the properties discovered in the stylized model also hold approximately in a more general multiserver setting. Numerical results are presented to demonstrate the accuracy and robustness of the approximations and the practical value of the model. This paper was accepted by Assaf Zeevi, stochastic models and simulation.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.210 · 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