Conceptual Model for Assessing Logistics Maturity in Smart City Dimensions
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The advancement of new technologies and the increasingly inseparable presence of logistics systems in the daily life of cities, industries, companies, and society has been modifying how logistics processes are implemented in these environments based on technological innovations, internet, virtual businesses, mobility, and the use of multi-channel distribution. Together with these changes, urban centers have been connecting to the smart city concept as the understanding of this theme advances into the debate and improvements in the agendas of either public or private management. This research proposes a conceptual model for evaluating logistics maturity in the smart city dimensions. The method has a qualitative, exploratory, and descriptive approach, supported by the Delphi method, which uses a questionnaire and interview as a data collection instrument with specialists on the subject. We identified that qualifying logistics in the urban environment is complex and requires a specialized look at identifying cities’ structural, geographic, regional, social, and environmental characteristics. As a social–technological contribution, the proposition of the logistics maturity assessment scale in smart city dimensions can serve as an evaluative model of logistics, which means helping in urban planning and strategic management of cities, offering smarter solutions to the realities of urban spaces.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it