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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Battery-assisted bicycles, or E-bikes, are part of a disruptive wave of transportation technology that uses electricity and rechargeable batteries to increase the velocity, the traveled distance and, as a consequence, the ridership. Biking and E-biking are globally recognized to have the potential to play an important role in the transition to a Net-Zero society. The widespread availability of E-bikes is significantly impacting several sectors of the tourist industry. Therefore, Touristic Administrations (TAs) now provide tourists with trail options and the corresponding charging infrastructure for E-bikers with different profiles. Our main objective is to provide TAs with a suitable decision-support tool that serves two purposes: (1) finding locations for charging stations by considering the difficulty and the cost of installing such stations in remote, often off-the-road locations; and (2) designing itineraries that are suitable for different categories of E-bikers. In the scientific literature, the first decision component has been mostly addressed in the context of electric cars, and it is not suitable for E-bikes. On the other hand, works on the second decision focused on muscular bikes, thus ignoring the first decision component. In this paper, we aim at closing this gap. We formulate this problem as a mixed-integer linear program. We develop an efficient branch-and-cut algorithm and present a comprehensive computational experiment. In particular, we provide a case study in the Asiago Sette Comuni Plateau in Italy, where the obtained charging stations and bike trails maximize a measure of attractiveness for three types of users.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it