MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125310543 · doi:10.1002/net.10067

The single‐vehicle routing problem with unrestricted backhauls

2003· article· en· W3125310543 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNetworks · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Routing Optimization Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolverComputer scienceBackhaul (telecommunications)Vehicle routing problemMathematical optimizationSet (abstract data type)RevenueRouting (electronic design automation)MathematicsComputer networkEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Suppose that a private carrier delivers to a set of customers and also has a number of (optional) backhaul opportunities. It wants to choose the best of these, depending on the revenue generated, and insert them in a revised tour. This will be at an expense of deviation from the original tour, because, here, deliveries need not precede backhauls. The problem is to find the mixed tour whose net cost is the lowest, selecting the most profitable backhauls subject to the overall capacity. We thus generalize several other vehicle routing problems with backhauls. A mixed‐integer model is developed for the problem. It is based on Miller–Tucker–Zemlin subtour elimination constraints. We address several improvement techniques aimed at increasing computational tractability of the formulation. Computational results show that medium‐sized problems can be solved optimally in a reasonable time by using a general‐purpose commercial solver. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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.

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.483

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.200 · 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