Optimizing inland port scale and function decisions: A bilevel programming approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the implementation of the Belt and Road Initiative, the inland ports planning is receiving more and more attention. In this work, we aim to determine the scale and function of different potential inland ports in a certain region while considering the cargo flow allocation schemes for the inland ports and seaports in cross-border trade. Unlike previous studies, we consider the dynamic interaction between local government and manufacturing enterprises in the inland port planning process. Based on this, we formulate a bilevel programming model for the considered inland port planning problem, where the upper-level focuses on the local government and the lower-level concentrates on the manufacturing enterprise. To solve the proposed model, we develop a hybrid heuristic algorithm by combining a genetic algorithm and an exact solution method. Furthermore, we conduct a case study of the inland ports planning for the Huaihai Economic Zone in China to verify the applicability of the proposed model and algorithm. The computational results demonstrate that the proposed optimization approach can effectively increase the cross-border transportation market share of inland ports within a limited investment amount and reduce the competition among these inland ports. Our case study also provides valuable management insights on inland port planning in terms of manufacturing enterprises weights, investment limit amount, scale effect, and cargo value weights.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".