A Systematic Literature Review of the Design of Intermodal Freight Transportation Networks Addressing Location-Allocation Decisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic literature review focuses on planning models jointly addressing location and allocation decisions related to the design of intermodal freight transportation networks. Since this body of literature is evolving quickly, a methodology based on a linked two-stage analysis is proposed. The first stage analyses recent surveys to establish the guidelines and criteria that enable the subsequent systematic review. Then, the review concentrates on analysing contributions to the current state of the art on intermodal freight transportation from two close, yet different research streams: transportation networks and supply chain networks. Key features identified in the first stage such as: 1) the research problem's characteristics; 2) the intermodal networks design's particularities; 3) proposed solution techniques, among others, are used to classify and analyse the different contributions. The review identifies current trends, emerging topics and some issues that merit being researched. [Received: 4 May 2019; Revised: 12 December 2019; Accepted: 1 February 2020]
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".