MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162651188 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2005.1557424

Optimal scheduling of gas pipeline operation using genetic algorithms

2006· article· en· W2162651188 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Hanh H. Nguyen, Christine W. Chan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGas compressorScheduling (production processes)Computer scienceCompressor stationPipeline (software)Genetic algorithmPipeline transportMathematical optimizationArtificial neural networkSelection (genetic algorithm)Job shop schedulingOperating costEngineeringMathematicsArtificial intelligenceEmbedded systemMachine learningRouting (electronic design automation)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a feasibility study of evolutionary scheduling for gas pipeline operations. The objective of gas pipeline operations is to transfer sufficient gas from gas stations to consumers so as to satisfy customer demand with minimum costs. The scheduling involves selection of a set of compressors to operate during a shift. The scheduling decision has to be made so as to satisfy the dual objectives of minimizing the sum of fuel cost, start-up cost, the cost of gas wasted due to oversupply, and satisfying minimal operative and inoperative time of the compressors. The problem was decomposed into the two subproblems of gas load forecast and selection of compressors. Neural networks were used for forecasting the load; and genetic algorithms were used to search for a near optimal combination of compressors. The study was conducted on a subsystem of the pipeline network located in southeastern Saskatchewan, Canada. The results are compared with the solutions generated by an expert system and a fuzzy programming model

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWater Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207