Optimizing Parcel Locker Locations in a City Crowd Logistics Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a growing market for crowd-shipping (CS), which hires people to transport parcels on their regular commutes. This paper considers a hybrid CS operation that hires crowd-shippers and regular drivers (RDs) in a physical internet environment. A city crowd logistics (CCL) network is designed to serve business-to-consumer logistics demand through solving a mixed-integer linear program of a parcel locker location assignment problem. The problem minimizes the total cost by optimizing the placement of parcel lockers and the movements of parcels. As an input to the program, the spatial distribution of potential crowd-shippers is analyzed by leveraging a behavior model and data that combines household travel survey data from the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), Canada, and Canadian census data. Parcel demand is simulated based on the proportions of retail employment and the population of the corresponding planning district in the GTA. The numerical results reveal that optimal parcel locker locations are more likely to be placed in Toronto while less likely to be installed in Durham and Halton regions. Concerning the service levels of the proposed network, it is found that a CCL network can provide more stable and cost-effective services when the parcel demand level is higher. The hiring of RDs is necessary to service some regions with low crowd-shipper supply. Insights from this study can help logistics companies to develop an effective business strategy for a hybrid CS operation system.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".