MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3176509696 · doi:10.1155/2021/8830561

Research on Hub-and-Spoke Transportation Network of China Railway Express

2021· article· en· W3176509696 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yinying Tang, Si Chen, Guangyu Lu, Qisheng Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Education of the People's Republic of ChinaChina Railway
KeywordsPort (circuit theory)Spoke-hub distribution paradigmNode (physics)Lagrangian relaxationMode (computer interface)Construct (python library)Transport engineeringHeuristicKey (lock)Operations researchFlow networkPoint (geometry)Dual (grammatical number)Network modelComputer scienceEngineeringMathematical optimizationComputer networkMathematicsData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

China Railway Express is developing rapidly, but the point-to-point direct organization mode has brought many problems to it. Therefore, this paper proposes to construct a hub-and-spoke network and adopt the “collecting and transportation” organization mode. In this paper, based on the single distribution p-hub median problem, a dual-objective planning model was constructed by considering the characteristics of CR Express in terms of cost and time. In addition, considering the port as a key node of international rail transport network, it plays a vital role for CR Express. Therefore, a hub-port allocation model was constructed to determine the hub-port allocation relationship. Furthermore, a Lagrangian relaxation heuristic algorithm was designed to solve the model built for CR Express transportation network. Finally, based on the constructed model, the actual operation data of CR Express were used in the designed example to verify the effectiveness and applicability of the models and methods.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.470

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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