Real-World Data Simulation Comparing GHG Emissions and Operational Performance of Two Sweeping Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In northern countries, spring requires the removal of large volumes of abrasive materials used in winter road maintenance. This sweeping process, crucial for safety and environmental protection, has traditionally relied on conventional mechanical brooms. Recent technological innovations, however, have introduced more efficient and environmentally friendly sweeping solutions; Methods: This study provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of the environmental and operational performance of these innovative sweeping systems versus conventional methods. Using simulation models based on real-world data and integrating fuel consumption models, the analysis replicates sweeping behaviors to assess both operational and environmental performance. A sensitivity analysis was conducted using these models, focusing on key parameters such as the collection rate, the number of trucks, the payload capacity, and the truck unloading duration; Results: The results show that the innovative sweeping system achieves an average 45% reduction in GHG emissions per kilometer compared to the conventional system, consistently demonstrating superior environmental efficiency across all resources configurations; Conclusions: These insights offer valuable guidance for service providers by identifying effective resource configurations that align with both environmental and operational objectives. The approach adopted in this study demonstrates the potential to develop decision-making support tools that balance operational and environmental pillars of sustainability, encouraging policy decision-makers to adopt greener procurement policies. Future research should explore the integration of advanced technologies such as IoT, AI-driven analytics, and digital twin systems, along with life cycle assessments, to further support sustainable logistics in road maintenance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".