MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897914761 · doi:10.1080/0305215x.2018.1524462

Collection network design with capacity planning in reverse logistics: static and restricted-dynamic models

2018· article· en· W2897914761 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Optimization · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSustainable Supply Chain Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Research Foundation of Korea
KeywordsHeuristicsTime horizonData collectionMathematical optimizationOperations researchComputer scienceInteger programmingDynamic programmingEngineeringMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study proposes two collection network design models that determine the locations and capacities of collection centres and the allocations of refuse at demand points to the opened collection centres: a single-period static model for time-invariant demands and a multi-period restricted-dynamic model for time-variant demands over a planning horizon. The capacities of collection centres are not given, but decision variables are used to obtain cost savings by minimizing surplus capacities. The maximum allowable distance between collection centres and demand points and the minimum recovery rates of collection centres are also considered. Two heuristics are proposed for each of the two problems after formulating them as integer programming models. Computational experiments were conducted on various test instances, and the results are reported. It is shown from the test results that the restricted-dynamic approach outperforms the static model significantly when the refuse demands are time variant. Finally, some managerial insights are derived.

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 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 score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score0.600

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.176 · 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