MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402444632 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2024-0180

Multi-objective optimization and simulation of earthwork equipment configuration in the upper reservoir of a pumped storage power station

2024· article· en· W4402444632 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lin Huang, Shuangying Zuo, Bo Yu, Shiwan Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment of Education of Guizhou ProvinceGuizhou Science and Technology Department
KeywordsEarthworksEnvironmental sciencePower stationPower (physics)EngineeringHydro powerPetroleum engineeringCivil engineeringEnvironmental engineeringElectrical engineeringGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To find the optimal equipment configuration for the earthwork construction in the upper reservoir of pumped storage power stations, the discrete event simulation was combined with the multi-objective optimization to optimize the construction equipment configurations of the upper reservoir in this paper. According to the daily filling intensity, different types and numbers of equipment were combined and the daily construction time of various combinations was calculated through simulation. Then, the equipment costs and carbon emissions were calculated by a multi-objective model. Setting different weights for each objective to consider the decision preferences of decision-makers, the optimal equipment configuration of earthwork construction was obtained by the multi-objective decision. This optimization framework was applied to a reservoir engineering in karst depressions, the results show that different preferences have an impact on the decision of optimal schemes. At the same time, the obtained schemes show low average queuing trucks and road congestions, and a high utilization rate of the equipment.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207