MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387407460 · doi:10.59934/jaiea.v3i1.350

Determining the Best Route for Multiple Orders Clients in Food Delivery Services with Simulated Annealing Algorithm

2023· article· en· W4387407460 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Artificial Intelligence and Engineering Applications (JAIEA) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDecision Support System Applications
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimulated annealingFood deliveryComputer scienceFood serviceBest practiceAlgorithmMarketingBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Food delivery services have been widely implemented by several companies such as Gojek Indonesia, Grab, Shopee Food and many more. Busyness and busy activity motivates someone to order online food delivery to meet their needs. For example, a worker who is tired of working all day orders food online for the dinner menu instead of cooking. Simulated annealing (SA) is an algorithm for performing general optimization. In this study, researchers built a system that determines the best delivery routes to deliver messages between customer meals using a simulated annealing algorithm. From the results of the study it was found that the application of the simulated annealing algorithm in finding the best route for multiple client food delivery in Binjai using data collected from drivers was quite good. Based on the results of trials conducted, Route [0-1-5-2-3-4] with a length of 6.29 km is the best route among others.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.397
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.228 · 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