A route selection process using a multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) approach based on the simple additive weighting (SAW) method: Evidence from Thai fresh fruit exported to China by road transportation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study identifies the optimal route for transporting agricultural fruits using the Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) method within a Multicriteria Decision-Making (MCDM) framework. Data was gathered through a literature review on transportation principles, route selection criteria, and truck routes, identifying eight critical factors for route selection. Transportation route data were also systematically collected, forming the basis of the proposed conceptual framework. The SAW analysis identified the highest-scoring routes for each segment: Route A1 (6.35406), Route B1 (6.38532), Route C1 (6.26248), and Route D3 (5.29061). Historical data from the past five years confirmed consistency in route selection. Comparatively, Dijkstra's Algorithm, based on single factors like distance, time, or cost, proved less effective for agricultural transportation. In contrast, the SAW method, integrating multiple factors, ensured more accurate route selection. Key influencing factors included road conditions, infrastructure or road width, and facility availability. The optimal route from Thailand to China was Route A1-B1, passing through Chanthaburi, Rayong, Chonburi, Chachoengsao, Samut Prakan, Bangkok, Pathum Thani, Ayutthaya, Ang Thong, Sing Buri, Chai Nat, Nakhon Sawan, Phichit, Phitsanulok, Uttaradit, Phrae, Lampang, Phayao, and Chiang Rai, terminating at Chiang Khong Customs Checkpoint. These findings offer practical guidance for planning and decision-making in agricultural transportation routes.
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 | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".