MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402567958 · doi:10.1016/j.cor.2024.106835

A slope scaling heuristic for the multi-period strategic planning of carbon capture and storage

2024· article· en· W4402567958 on OpenAlexaff
Gabriel Homsi, Étienne Ayotte-Sauvé, Sanjay Dominik Jena

Bibliographic record

VenueComputers & Operations Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGlobal Energy and Sustainability Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité de MontréalNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeuristicScalingPeriod (music)Computer scienceMathematical optimizationOperations researchCarbon fibersAlgorithmMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Around the world, efforts are currently underway to implement various decarbonization strategies to meet net-zero emissions objectives. This includes carbon capture and storage (CCS), which involves capturing CO 2 at emitter sites, and transporting it to geological reservoirs, where it is to be injected underground for long-term storage. In this work, we focus on the multi-period strategic planning of a CCS value chain involving pipeline CO 2 transportation. From an Operations Research standpoint, this problem exhibits the characteristics of combined facility location and network design. To account for multiple scenarios of input parameters ( e.g. market and geological variability), this problem has to be solved hundreds or thousands of times. Thus, reaching high-quality solutions quickly is crucial. As commercial solvers struggle to provide high-quality solutions under these time constraints, we propose a slope scaling heuristic based on previous work on single-period CCS planning and network design. This new heuristic approximates the cost of design variables, generates upper bounds via dynamic programming, uses a long-term memory search strategy, and includes a final improvement phase where a restricted model is solved. Computational experiments show that the proposed heuristic generates better solutions than CPLEX for most instances considered, at a fraction of the computational time.

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 score0.006
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
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 venueComputers & Operations ResearchSame topicGlobal Energy and Sustainability ResearchFrench-language works237,207