MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2481586472 · doi:10.3141/2599-10

Flood-Resilient Deployment of Fueling Stations: Extension of Facility Location Problem

2016· article· en· W2481586472 on OpenAlexaff
Arash Beheshtian, Kieran P. Donaghy, Omid M. Rouhani

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftware deploymentInterdependenceTransport engineeringFlow networkFlooding (psychology)Metropolitan areaComputer scienceNetwork planning and designKey (lock)Sustainable transportSustainabilityOperations researchEngineeringComputer securityGeographyComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sustainable transport commonly considers either the interaction between built and natural environments or the interface between transportation and interdependent critical infrastructure. Although considering each of these key dimensions is a crucial task for achieving sustainable transport, the dimensions are infrequently considered together. When an integrated network design framework is proposed, two important issues are taken into account: ( a) the aftermath of potential severe weather episodes on metropolitan-area infrastructure and ( b) the existing interdependencies across transportation and fuel supply chain networks. Then the response of infrastructure in the face of flooding hazards is investigated. Framed within a multistage linear stochastic program, the proposed model seeks to find fueling station deployment that provides the transportation network with optimum random functionality when the network is stressed or under attack. A set of numerical experiments illustrates how changes to enhancement strategies at different stages of government affect the optimal investments in resilient design.

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)0.004
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 score0.601
Threshold uncertainty score0.528

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicInfrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207