A Two-Stage Interval-Stochastic Programming Model for Waste Management under Uncertainty
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study introduces a two-stage interval-stochastic programming (TISP) model for the planning of solid-waste management systems under uncertainty. The model is derived by incorporating the concept of two-stage stochastic programming within an interval-parameter optimization framework. The approach has the advantage that policy determined by the authorities, and uncertain information expressed as intervals and probability distributions, can be effectively communicated into the optimization processes and resulting solutions. In the modeling formulation, penalties are imposed when policies expressed as allowable waste-loading levels are violated. In its solution algorithm, the TISP model is converted into two deterministic submodels, which correspond to the lower and upper bounds for the desired objective-function value. Interval solutions, which are stable in the given decision space with associated levels of system-failure risk, can then be obtained by solving the two submodels sequentially. Two special characteristics of the proposed approach make it unique compared with other optimization techniques that deal with uncertainties. First, the TISP model provides a linkage to predefined policies determined by authorities that have to be respected when a modeling effort is undertaken; second, it furnishes the reflection of uncertainties presented as both probabilities and intervals. The developed model is applied to a hypothetical case study of regional solid-waste management. The results indicate that reasonable solutions have been generated. They provide desired waste-flow patterns with minimized system costs and maximized system feasibility. The solutions present as stable interval solutions with different risk levels in violating the waste-loading criterion and can be used for generating decision alternatives.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it