Electric Mobility Emission Reduction Policies: A Multi-Objective Optimization Assessment Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The passenger transportation sector is notoriously sticky to decarbonize because it is interlinked with urban form, individual choice, and economic growth. As the urgency to respond to climate change increases and the transport sector disproportionally increases its contributions to global GHG emissions, there is a need for a more meaningful and transparent application of tools to cost GHG emission reduction. This study presents a multi-objective integer optimization (MIO) model to support the costing and GHG reduction estimation of electric mobility road passenger transportation policies. The model considers both cost and GHG emission minimization under resource constraints and background changes in policy interventions within interval ranges for the province of Ontario’s (Canada) in year 2030. All Pareto optimal solutions are included but results that indicate the optimal policy allocation for two discrete targets are discussed in detail; one scenario where $3 billion spending over ten years is the target and another scenario where the target is 40% GHG reduction in year 2030 (relative to 2005 levels). The MIO approach offers an out-of-the-box solution to support the GHG-reducing decision-making process at all levels of government by implementing optimal policy combinations to achieve GHG emission reductions under a target GHG emission reduction target and/or budget.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".