GRASP with ALNS for solving the location routing problem of infectious waste collection in the Northeast of Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research proposes a heuristic to solve the problem of the location selection of incinerators and the vehicle routing of infectious waste collection for hospitals in the Northeast of Thailand. The developed heuristic is called the Greedy Randomized Adaptive Large Neighborhood Search Procedure (GRALNSP)and applies the principles of the Greedy Randomized Adaptive Search Procedure (GRASP) and Adaptive Large Neighborhood Search (ALNS) in the local search. The results from GRALNSP are compared with those from the exact method processed by the A Mathematical Programming Language (AMPL) program. For small-sized problems, experiments showed that both methods provided no different results with the global optimal solution, but GRALNSP required less computational time. When the problems were larger-scale and more complicated, AMPL could not find the optimal solution within the limited period of computational time while GRALNSP provided better results with much less computational time. In solving the case study with GRALNSP, the result shows that the suitable locations for opening infectious waste incinerators are the locations of Pathum Ratwongsa district, Amnat Charoen province and Nam Phong district, Khonkaen province. An incinerator with a burning capacity of 600 kilogram/hour is used at both locations. The monthly total distances for infectious waste collection are 24,055.24 and 38,401.88 kilometers, respectively, and the lowest total cost is 6,268,970.40 baht per month.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".