MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414179217 · doi:10.3390/modelling6030103

Evaluating Carsharing Fleet Management Strategies Using Discrete Event Simulation: A Case Study

2025· article· en· W4414179217 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueModelling—International Open Access Journal of Modelling in Engineering Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFleet managementDiscrete event simulationEvent (particle physics)Measure (data warehouse)Quality (philosophy)Incident management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a carsharing organization, vehicle availability is considered as a measure of the quality of service. This paper presents a discrete event simulation model to evaluate the performance of round-trip (return to the same station) vs. one-way (return to any station) fleet management strategies used by carsharing organizations. The proposed model evaluates the customer rejection rate for each fleet management strategy and recommends the one with the least number of rejections. A customer request is deemed to be rejected when a vehicle cannot be made available to the user at the requested time and location. A case study for the carsharing organization Communauto in Montreal is conducted. The simulation results show that the one-way model has a greater request rejection rate of 13%, compared to 8% for the round-trip model. Therefore, a round-trip strategy is recommended to Communauto for managing its current fleet operations.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.480
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.165
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.308 · 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