MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170216278 · doi:10.1287/trsc.35.3.286.10153

Simultaneous Vehicle and Crew Scheduling in Urban Mass Transit Systems

2001· article· en· W2170216278 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Routing Optimization Methods
Canadian institutionsHEC MontréalPolytechnique MontréalGroup for Research in Decision Analysis
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrew schedulingScheduling (production processes)Column generationMathematical optimizationHomogeneousComputer scienceCrewHeuristicBranch and boundJob shop schedulingOperations researchEngineeringMathematicsSchedule

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an exact approach for solving the simultaneous vehicle and crew scheduling problem in urban mass transit systems. We consider the single depot case with a homogeneous fleet of vehicles. This approach relies on a set partitioning formulation for the driver scheduling problem that incorporates side constraints for the bus itineraries. The proposed solution approach consists of a column generation process (only for the crew schedules) integrated into a branch-and-bound scheme. The side constraints on buses guarantee that an optimal vehicle assignment can be derived afterwards in polynomial time. A computational study shows that this approach out-performs the previous methods found in the literature for a set of randomly generated instances. A heuristic version of the solution approach is also proposed and tested on larger instances.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.278
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.245 · 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