MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comprehensive Fleet and Charger Sizing for Public Transportation Electrification Considering Route Assignment

2023· article· en· W4386899175 on OpenAlexaff
Mostafa F. Shaaban, M.M.A. Salama

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrificationPublic transportProcurementSizingBattery (electricity)Transport engineeringComputer scienceWork (physics)Automotive engineeringOperations researchEngineeringElectricityElectrical engineeringBusinessPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Public transportation electrification is a topic of great interest due to its potentially significant impact on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In order to electrify the public transportation system, the first stage is to determine the appropriate sizing of the necessary assets. Consequently, the goal of this work is the sizing of the fleet and chargers for transit agencies that choose to operate their fleets using overnight charging. The developed methodology incorporates detailed route assignment, energy consumption modeling, and charging requirements for electric fleets. The problem goes through several stages: day-time operation is first modeled for every route individually to determine battery electric bus (BEB) route assignment while enforcing battery state of charge (SOC) constraints. Next, night-time operation is modeled to determine the optimal number of chargers needed to fully charge the fleet in preparation for the next day's operation. The formulation reflects the real-world selection and procurement process, which accounts for the interactions between transit agencies and tech-nology manufacturers or suppliers. In this work the proposed methodology is studied on a transit system composed of four short distance routes, to determine the final number of BEBs and chargers needed. The obtained results show the efficacy of the proposed approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.631
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectric Vehicles and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207