MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3046191236 · doi:10.4018/ijsvst.2020070102

An Innovative Modelling and Decision-Support Approach for Evaluating Urban Transshipment Problems Using Electrical Trucks

2020· article· en· W3046191236 on OpenAlexaff
Yavuz Günalay, Julian Scott Yeomans

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Smart Vehicles and Smart Transportation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransshipment (information security)TruckDecision support systemComputer scienceProcess (computing)MetaheuristicOperations researchCity logisticsTransport engineeringEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a consequence of urban intensification, logistics planning becomes more important than ever. Electric vehicles have proved to be both environmentally friendly and a lower-cost alternative to internal combustion engine vehicles. However, existing decision methods employed by businesses and municipalities are not universally conducive to the optimization and evaluation of urban transportation systems. An innovative model and planning approach is proposed to enable urban planners to more readily evaluate the contribution of electric vehicles in city logistics and to support the decision-making process. When faced with decision-making situations that involve multiple and inconsistent performance objectives, it is often preferable to consider several quantifiably good alternatives that provide various, very different perspectives. This paper provides a modeling-to-generate-alternatives (MGA) decision-support procedure that uses the firefly algorithm (FA) metaheuristic for generating sets of maximally different alternatives for electric vehicle planning in urban transshipment problems.

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 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.351
Threshold uncertainty score0.613

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Smart Vehicles and Smart TransportationSame topicElectric Vehicles and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207