An Optimization Model for Structuring a Car-Sharing Fleet Considering Traffic Congestion Intensity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ever-growing mobility and traffic congestion within urban areas make the need for a sustainable form of transport inevitable. Traffic congestion has a significant effect on the amount of energy consumption of a vehicle and, as a result, on its associated environmental impacts. Any decision-making regarding structuring a fleet without taking into account the traffic congestion level (TCL) will lead to a less sustainable fleet with higher environmental and economic costs. To address this issue, this study examines the effects of the traffic congestion intensity level on the fleet structure of an urban car-sharing company over a certain planning period. We present a new optimization framework for finding an optimal vehicle composition of the fleet of an urban car-sharing company considering the energy consumption of vehicles at different traffic congestion levels. The results show that electric vehicles (EVs) are more competitive than diesel vehicles (DVs) in high-peak traffic congestion from the outset of the planning period. In addition, we perform a sensitivity analysis to take into account the effects of specific uncertain parameters such as the energy and purchasing costs of EVs on the total cost of ownership. As expected, the purchasing price of EVs, energy prices of DVs, and increase in diesel prices have the highest impact on the total cost.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".