Solving a multi-objective location routing problem for infectious waste disposal using hybrid goal programming and hybrid genetic algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infectious waste disposal remains one of the most serious problems in the medical, social and environmental domains of almost every country.Selection of new suitable locations and finding the optimal set of transport routes for a fleet of vehicles to transport infectious waste material, location routing problem for infectious waste disposal, is one of the major problems in hazardous waste management.Determining locations for infectious waste disposal is a difficult and complex process, because it requires combining both intangible and tangible factors.Additionally, it depends on several criteria and various regulations.This facility location problem for infectious waste disposal is complicated, and it cannot be addressed using any standalone technique.Based on a case study, 107 hospitals and 6 candidate municipalities in Upper-Northeastern Thailand, we considered criteria such as infrastructure, geology and social & environmental criteria, evaluating global priority weights using the fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (Fuzzy AHP).After that, a new multi-objective facility location problem model which hybridizes fuzzy AHP and goal programming (GP), namely the HGP model, was tested.Finally, the vehicle routing problem (VRP) for a case study was formulated, and it was tested using a hybrid genetic algorithm (HGA) which hybridizes the push forward insertion heuristic (PFIH), genetic algorithm (GA) and three local searches including 2-opt, insertion-move and interexchange-move.The results show that both the HGP and HGA can lead to select new suitable locations and to find the optimal set of transport routes for vehicles delivering infectious waste material.The novelty of the proposed methodologies, HGP, is the simultaneous combination of relevant factors that are difficult to interpret and cost factors in order to determine new suitable locations, and HGA can be applied to determine the transport routes which provide a minimum number of vehicles and minimum transportation cost under the actual situation efficiently in this case.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".