An integrated multi-criteria decision analysis and optimization modeling approach to spatially operational road repair decisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we developed a generic cost-effective approach for spatially explicit decision support involving the allocation of road repair treatments. The approach begins with an assessment of the existing road condition to identify the extent of environmental impacts and to determine road repair regimes in a subjective manner using group-decision making efforts. An integer programming model is then formulated by combining expert opinions with operational costs to guide repair schedules required for each road segment at the operational planning level. To demonstrate model performance, we applied it to a 400 km2 landscape consisting of 289 km of paved roads in the mountainous region of the Hyrcanian forests in Iran. We assessed sensitivity of the inputs, such as weight verification, budgetary limitations, and rehabilitation weights. The results of the subjective analysis show that 76% of the roads analyzed in these forests must be prioritized to receive treatments as intended for logistical purposes. Incorporating the extent of environmental dimensions into operational costs allows us to generate an optimal tradeoff curve by selecting an appropriate treatment for segments of a road network. The approach demonstrated here can be used to design detailed alternative solutions for addressing spatially-informed road decisions under various terrain conditions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".