A Two-Stage Interval-Stochastic Programming Model for Waste Management under Uncertainty
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".