MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399685656 · doi:10.5267/j.jpm.2024.3.001

Optimizing Modular Hub Location in Air and Road Transportation Systems

2024· article· en· W4399685656 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zahra Arabzadeh Nosrat Abad, Farid Momayezi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Project Management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Manufacturing and Logistics Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModular designTransport engineeringComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceAeronauticsEngineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hub networks play a crucial role in optimizing transportation costs in air and road systems. Their main objective is to strategically locate hubs and allocate non-hub nodes within the network. The modular hub location problem is a specific area of hub network design that focuses on accurately calculating transportation costs, considering factors like trip numbers and capacity constraints in network routes. This study proposes a mixed-integer programming model to address the modular hub location problem with multiple allocations. It considers dependent and independent costs associated with vehicles per trip between hub network routes, considering specific vehicle capacities. Two datasets are utilized for validation: the CAB dataset representing 25 nodes of US airports and the TR dataset representing the Turkish transportation system with 81 nodes. To tackle the NP-hard nature of hub location models and the computational complexity of the proposed model, two solutions are developed. Firstly, a novel LP relaxation-based method using GAMS software provides near-optimal solutions for medium-sized instances. Additionally, a Genetic Algorithm (GA) implemented in MATLAB handles larger instances. The GA's efficiency is enhanced by tuning its parameters using the Taguchi method. Results analysis shows that both proposed algorithms yield high-quality solutions within significantly reduced timeframes compared to the CPLEX solver in GAMS software. The LP relaxation-based method performs well for medium-sized instances, while the GA approach is efficient for larger instances after parameter tuning with the Taguchi method.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Project ManagementSame topicAdvanced Manufacturing and Logistics OptimizationFrench-language works237,207