Many to many hub and spoke location routing problem based on the gravity rule
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the spoke and hub location decisions in a routing problem. To minimize the total cost, the study analyzes on how to locate the spokes, hubs and the allocation of spoke nodes to hub nodes, the routing among the nodes and the number of vehicles assigned to each hub thoroughly. As there might be no facility assigned to some points, unsatisfied demands must be distributed to other nodes with available facilities. Furthermore, the realized demand is determined by considering the perceived utility of each path, using The Gravity rule. For this purpose, the proposed nonlinear model is transformed into a linear programming model, where some tightening rules and preprocessing procedures are applied, and also the sequential and integrated approaches are developed to solve the problem. In the sequential method, spokes are allocated, and hubs are selected based on the location of the spokes, after which the routing in the local tour is determined. Meanwhile, in the integrated approach, the aggregated model is solved. A heuristic is presented to address the integrated model. Numerical experiments are run on both approaches, to compare both, and obtain insights from the model.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it