MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141125834 · doi:10.1002/atr.5670340207

Optimal scheduling of public transport fleet at network level

2000· article· en· W2141125834 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sutanto Soehodho Nahry

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScheduling (production processes)Public transportOperator (biology)TRIPS architectureComputer scienceOperations researchMathematical optimizationDynamic programmingRouting (electronic design automation)Service (business)Vehicle routing problemFleet managementTransport engineeringEngineeringComputer networkTelecommunicationsMathematicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper deals with the development of a strategic approach for optimizing the operation of public transport system that considers both user's objective and operator's objective. Passengers of public transport are assumed to seek a minimum wait time to conduct the trips, while on the other hand, operators are concerned with the efficient operation such as minimum fleet size. The average minimum wait time is to be achieved by creating an optimal despatching policy for each vehicle from the terminal. As for efficient operation the utilisation of vehicle should be maximised by having a minimum number of vehicles in operation. User's and operator's objectives are optimized within certain operational constraints such as vehicle capacity to maintain acceptable level of service. The i‐model is contructed in a bi‐level programming form in which the user's objective is minimized by dynamic programming and the operator's objective is minimized by various routing strategies. Furthermore, an algorithm and a contrived example are developed to solve and see the performance of the approach.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.671

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations6
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTransportation and Mobility InnovationsFrench-language works237,207