Fleet Scheduling Optimization of Hazardous Materials Transportation: A Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To comprehensively understand the research progress of the fleet scheduling for hazardous materials, the study has summarized the corresponding research results from three aspects (a) hazardous materials transportation risk, (b) route optimization, and (c) fleet scheduling, and then pointed out potential problems from six aspects: (a) the coupling risk of the transport fleet; (b) the screening of time and space for the transport of hazardous materials; (c) the scheduling optimization for transport fleets; (d) taking insufficient account of transport risks fairness; (e) insufficient robustness of scheduling schemes; and (f) lacking of research results on fleet scheduling of transport in the context of antiterrorism. After that, by considering the existing shortcomings of the current research, five research directions are presented that should be further explored in the future. Subsequently, both rough set and association rule theory is applied to explore the cause chain of transportation accidents for hazardous materials, and analyze the mechanism of transport accident for hazardous materials. Next, the Bayesian network is presented to predict the accident rate of hazardous materials transportation under different temporal and spatial conditions, and the dynamic rolling scheduling method of hazardous materials transport fleet is constructed under normal and antiterrorism background.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".