MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224986705 · doi:10.18280/mmep.090217

Mobile Chipper Scheduling in the Production of Fuel Chips

2022· article· en· W4224986705 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anna Voronova, Oľga Kunickaya, Daria A. Burmistrova, Тамара Стородубцева, Svetlana Chzhan, Valentina Nikiforova, Viktoria Shvetsova, Evgenii Kalita

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRussian Science Foundation
KeywordsBoiler (water heating)Raw materialScheduleComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)Wood fuelSupply chain optimizationProcess engineeringWaste managementEnvironmental scienceEngineeringOperations managementSupply chainBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to economic and environmental factors, boiler houses are forced to switch to wood fuel, which is very popular in the modern world. The most practical way to supply them with wood fuel is to mobilize mobile chippers that can move between different boiler houses and save money on additional chipping equipment. This paper seeks to build a mathematical model to optimize the movement of a mobile chipper between multiple boiler houses and its operation during the heating season. The model was designed for long-term planning, and it relies on a simplex algorithm. It considers three crucial parameters: machine capacity, feedstock amount, and traveled distance, and is suitable for schedule modeling purposes in the presence of fewer than 12 nodes. The number of nodes can be higher after a heuristic rule is applied. The proposal can be help schedule the biomass feedstock development at the regional level and switch to the local types of fuel. In addition, it will reduce the cost of thermal energy and increase the volume of wood waste chipped.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.382
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Modelling and Engineering ProblemsSame topicForest Biomass Utilization and ManagementFrench-language works237,207