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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".