MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Green and Intelligent Planning of Drone Launch in Truck-Drone Collaborative Delivery

2024· article· en· W4405909329 on OpenAlexafffund
Didem Cicek, Murat Şimşek, Burak Kantarcı

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDroneAeronauticsTruckComputer scienceAerospace engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Internet of Things (IoT) paradigm has enabled innovative applications across various domains, significantly enhancing efficiency in the transportation sector through intelligence-driven and sustainable solutions. In the field of parcel delivery, the integration of trucks and drones has attracted considerable attention from both academia and industry as a means to optimize logistics networks and reduce last-mile delivery costs. Traditionally, research on truck-drone collaborative delivery (TDCD) has focused on routing and scheduling problems within hypothetical scenarios. This study, however, seeks to address the problem using a more realistic approach by introducing a newly generated customer order dataset, which includes data from 191 customer locations over a span of 7 days. The goal is to evaluate the efficiency of drone deliveries assisted by trucks. Utilizing this dataset, we applied the Self-Organizing Feature Map (SOFM) algorithm, a type of artificial neural network, to the TDCD problem. This novel approach identifies the optimal location for truck-based drone launches to minimize overall travel distance. Thanks to its adaptive nature, the SOFM algorithm dynamically selects the launch location based on daily customer orders rather than relying on a static, predetermined site. This method has resulted in a 4.4% reduction in the total distance traveled by drones and a $\mathbf{1. 1 \%}$ reduction in the distance covered by trucks over the seven-day period. These efficiencies translate into savings of $30.28 \mathrm{gCO2}$ in carbon emissions and 80.16 Wh of energy consumption, equivalent to 288.58 Kjoules.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207