MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2778388802 · doi:10.1287/trsc.2018.0888

Integrated Liner Shipping Network Design and Scheduling

2020· article· en· W2778388802 on OpenAlexaff
David Franz Koza, Guy Desaulniers, Stefan Røpke

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaritime Ports and Logistics
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalGroup for Research in Decision AnalysisHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContainer (type theory)Flow networkScheduling (production processes)ContainerizationTransport engineeringBusinessComputer scienceOperations researchEngineeringOperations managementMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In global liner shipping networks, a large share of transported cargo is transshipped at least once between container vessels, and the total transportation time of these containers depends on how well the corresponding services are synchronized. We propose a problem formulation that integrates service scheduling into the liner shipping network design problem. Furthermore, the model incorporates many industry-relevant modeling aspects: it allows for leg-based sailing speed optimization, it is not limited to simple or butterfly-type services, and it accounts for service-level requirements such as cargo transit time limits. The classic liner shipping network design problem is already a hard problem, and to solve the extended version, we propose a column-generation matheuristic that uses advanced linear programming techniques. The proposed method solves LINER-LIB instances of up to 114 ports and, if applied to the classic liner shipping network design problem, finds new best solutions to all instances, outperforming existing methods reported in the literature. Additionally, we analyze the relevance of scheduling for liner shipping network design. The results indicate that neglecting scheduling and approximating transshipments instead may result in the design of liner shipping networks that underestimate cargo transit times and their implications.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation ScienceSame topicMaritime Ports and LogisticsFrench-language works237,207