MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393346702 · doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2024.03.015

The impacts of optimization approaches on BEB system configuration in transit

2024· article· en· W4393346702 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ahmed Foda, Moataz Mohamed

Bibliographic record

VenueTransport Policy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Transportation Research ForumNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaTransport Canada
KeywordsGreenhouse gasElectricityCapital costScheduleTransit (satellite)Transport engineeringEnvironmental economicsPublic transportBus rapid transitNetwork planning and designComputer scienceEngineeringTelecommunicationsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Battery-electric buses (BEBs) are considered suitable technology for transit to tackle climate change and promote environmentally friendly mobility solutions. However, the systemic configuration of BEBs in transit requires sophisticated planning efforts due to contradictory objectives and decisions. The optimal design of a BEB transit system is often approached from various perspectives, leading to different system configurations and distinct impacts on the electricity grid. Towards that end, this study develops three BEB system configuration optimization models, including minimizing capital costs, electricity costs, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. All three models inform the optimal charging system configuration, BEBs battery capacity, and BEBs charging schedule for a general hub-and-spoke transit network. The proposed models are applied to a case study of the Belleville City, Ontario, Canada, bus transit network. The results demonstrate that BEB system configuration and GHG emissions vary significantly according to the optimization perspective. Moreover, the findings emphasize the importance of using the energy storage system to reduce electricity costs and GHG emissions.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransport PolicySame topicElectric Vehicles and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207