MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003938257 · doi:10.1109/tfuzz.2020.2970834

Sentiment Analysis for Driver Selection in Fuzzy Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem With Simultaneous Pick-Up and Drop in Shared Transportation

2020· article· en· W3003938257 on OpenAlexaff
Pankaj Gupta, Mukesh Kumar Mehlawat, Anisha Khaitan, Witold Pedrycz

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Routing Optimization Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSelection (genetic algorithm)Fuzzy logicVehicle routing problemProcess (computing)Routing (electronic design automation)Operations researchFuzzy setArtificial intelligenceMachine learningData miningEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shared transportation involves vehicles, drivers, and customers, the interactions among which could have potential long-term impacts on the business. Machine learning techniques, and their integration with existing models, have proved to significantly improve results. Availability of extensive unstructured textual data has fostered research in text generation and mining. Cognizance and analysis of such data has become crucial for modern commercial applications. Thus, in this article, sentiment analysis, using natural language processing, is used to quantify raw customer feedback, to obtain drivers' ratings and perform driver selection. Selection of the best drivers for ferrying riders is desired and modeled accordingly. An integrated vehicle routing problem with generalized fuzzy travel durations, and uncertain pick-up and drop demands, is modeled and solved using a hybrid genetic algorithm. Fuzzy simulations in a credibilistic environment are employed to evaluate the cost function. Performance of selected drivers is used to update driver ratings for the subsequent run, and the process is repeated multiple times. The results obtained authenticate the purpose of this article, and comparative analysis is performed to further corroborate the model's capability. An additional case of triangular fuzzy ratings is also illustrated, and its impact on the model discussed. Suggestions for driver classification are also provided for personnel management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.233
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Fuzzy SystemsSame topicVehicle Routing Optimization MethodsFrench-language works237,207