MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4236655850 · doi:10.1504/ijor.2016.10000023

Truck loading with weight balancing considerations

2016· article· en· W4236655850 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Operational Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransport Systems and Technology
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTruckPalletHeuristicsAxleComputer scienceAutomotive engineeringEngineeringStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to ensure transportation safety, one main factor in the truck loading problem (TLP) that must be addressed is stability. This paper presents two models of the TLP with weight balancing considerations: 1) balancing the axle weight; 2) balancing the total weight. In the first model, a set of stock keeping units (SKUs) with different weights are loaded on to a pallet, and then the pallets are loaded on to available trucks to minimise the total number of used trucks under the constraints of truck weight limit and axle weight balancing. In the second model, a set of cargoes with different weights are loaded on to a fixed number of trucks with the purpose to balance the loaded weights for all the trucks under the constraints of weight limit. Both models are mixed integer programmes (MIPs). Efficient heuristics are designed to solve these models. Computational results show that the proposed approach can be used to solve the real world TLPs with balancing considerations.

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.428
Threshold uncertainty score0.722

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.283 · 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