A spatial analysis of hierarchical waste transport structures under growing demand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The design of waste management systems rarely accounts for the spatio-temporal evolution of the demand. However, recent studies suggest that this evolution affects the planning of waste management activities like the choice and location of treatment facilities. As a result, the transport structure could also be affected by these changes. The objective of this paper is to study the influence of the spatio-temporal evolution of the demand on the strategic planning of a waste transport structure. More particularly this study aims at evaluating the effect of varying spatial parameters on the economic performance of hierarchical structures (with one transfer station). To this end, three consecutive generations of three different spatial distributions were tested for hierarchical and non-hierarchical transport structures based on costs minimization. Results showed that a hierarchical structure is economically viable for large and clustered spatial distributions. The distance parameter was decisive but the loading ratio of trucks and the formation of clusters of sources also impacted the attractiveness of the transfer station. Thus the territories' morphology should influence strategies as regards to the installation of transfer stations. The use of spatial-explicit tools such as the transport model presented in this work that take into account the territory's evolution are needed to help waste managers in the strategic planning of waste transport structures.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".