MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3131486053 · doi:10.1155/2021/8871876

Resilience-Based Optimization of Postdisaster Restoration Strategy for Road Networks

2021· article· en· W3131486053 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xinhua Mao, Jibiao Zhou, Changwei Yuan, Dan Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesMinistry of Education of the People's Republic of ChinaNatural Science Foundation of Zhejiang ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsResilience (materials science)Computer scienceScheduleInteger programmingOperations researchDuration (music)Genetic algorithmDisequilibriumSensitivity (control systems)Perspective (graphical)Transport engineeringMathematical optimizationEngineeringMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMachine learningAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work proposes a framework for the optimization of postdisaster road network restoration strategies from a perspective of resilience. The network performance is evaluated by the total system travel time (TSTT). After the implementation of a postdisaster restoration schedule, the network flows in a certain period of days are on a disequilibrium state; thus, a link-based day-to-day traffic assignment model is employed to compute TSTT and simulate the traffic evolution. Two indicators are developed to assess the road network resilience, i.e., the resilience of performance loss and the resilience of recovery rapidity. The former is calculated based on TSTT, and the latter is computed according to the restoration makespan. Then, we formulate the restoration optimization problem as a resilience-based bi-objective mixed integer programming model aiming to maximize the network resilience. Due to the NP-hardness of the model, a genetic algorithm is developed to solve the model. Finally, a case study is conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method. The effects of key parameters including the number of work crews, travelers’ sensitivity to travel time, availability of budget, and decision makers’ preference on the values of the two objectives are investigated as well.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations27
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207