A robust linear model for the maximum expected coverage location problem considering the relative coverage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emergency medical services (EMS) stations reduce mortality and irreparable damage from injuries through the timely treatment of patients. After performing the initial measures at the scene of the accident, if necessary, they transfer the patient to the hospital. In such cases, the goal is to save human lives. Thus, suggestions and solutions that can improve the performance of these centers are very welcome. One of the most important parameters in providing high-quality EMS is the timing of these services. Therefore, the location of these centers plays a key role in diminishing the response time to demand. In that regard, the location of these centers in cities, especially large and densely populated cities, is very important. In this study, in order to answer the mentioned questions, a linear mathematical model based on the maximum expected coverage model is presented. In this model, by considering the relative coverage conditions, the best locations in the city, as well as the coverage of demand points and distance traveled by the vehicles will be obtained. Furthermore, robust optimization (RO) is used to provide better situations for the operation of the model. Finally, according to the results, it is found that the proposed model has a better resolution time than nonlinear models and is also able to solve cases with high input data. The proposed model is implemented in District 10 of Tehran, Iran.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".