Where to place emergency ambulance vehicles: use of a capacitated maximum covering location model with real call data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study integrates geographical information systems (GIS) with a mathematical optimization technique to enhance emergency medical services (EMS) coverage in a county in the northeast of Iran. EMS demand locations were determined through one-year EMS call data analysis. We formulated a maximal covering location problem (MCLP) as a mixed-integer linear programming model with a capacity threshold for vehicles using the CPLEX optimizer, an optimization software package from IBM. To ensure applicability to the EMS setting, we incorporated a constraint that maintains an acceptable level of service for all EMS calls. Specifically, we implemented two scenarios: a relocation model for existing ambulances and an allocation model for new ambulances, both using a list of candidate locations. The relocation model increased the proportion of calls within the 5-minute coverage standard from 69% to 75%. With the allocation model, we found that the coverage proportion could rise to 84% of total calls by adding ten vehicles and eight new stations. The incorporation of GIS techniques into optimization modelling holds promise for the efficient management of scarce healthcare resources, particularly in situations where time is of the essence.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".