Cascading Reliability Assessment of International Railway Freight Network Based on Coupled Map Lattices: A Case Study of China Railway Express
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cascading reliability problem of international railway freight network is becoming noticeable due to the limitation of node transportation capacity with increases in the transport volume of the international railway freight trains. We discuss this problem in this study, thereby focusing on the failure process of the international railway freight network. As the first step, we consider three factors of node degree, node betweenness, and edge betweenness based on the complex network theory, and establish the node model using coupled map lattice method. Next, we select three indicators to evaluate the reliability characteristics of the network and evaluate the robustness of the network with the maximum effective graph and the network efficiency. Finally, we apply the model to the China Railway Express freight network and consider two situations: cascading failures and noncascading failures that are corresponding to two strategies: redistributing cargoes and disbanding cargoes. The results show that the cascading reliability of the China Railway Express freight network is not high. The indicators decrease less than 10% under noncascading failure, while more than 40% under cascading failure, so the network is more reliable under noncascading failure. Our research provides a new way to test the cascading reliability of the international railway freight network and provide different strategies for improving reliability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".