An Approach for Managing Operating Assets for Humanitarian Development Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Every year, humanitarian organizations assign a sizable portion of their limited financial resources to procure, operate and maintain operating assets, without which service delivery would be nearly impossible. In this study, using vehicles to represent operating assets, we identify policies for sizing and allocating operational capacity to minimize the expected deprivation costs in a humanitarian development context. First, we develop a stochastic dynamic programming model, and then an efficient heuristic policy that considers the interaction of asset purchasing and operating decisions when the budget is uncertain. Based on a dataset provided by a large international organization, we estimate the parameters of our model to run numerical experiments. Results demonstrate the following: (i) Although budget uncertainty increases the expected deprivation costs and decreases capacity utilization, the negative impact of budget uncertainty is mitigated if budget savings between periods is allowed; (ii) a policy for minimizing the expected deprivation costs over time may avoid using all available assets in all periods; (iii) in situations in which the variation in the criticality of missions is large, both the expected deprivation costs and fleet utilization decrease; and (iv) in most conditions, a centralized asset procurement model outperforms a decentralized model, not only in terms of logistic costs but also in minimizing the expected deprivation costs.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".