MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414572393 · doi:10.1016/s2307-1877(25)00387-6

A framework for an on-demand dangerous goods routing support system for the metro Vancouver area

2014· article· en· W4414572393 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

VenueJournal of Engineering Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRouting (electronic design automation)Selection (genetic algorithm)Dangerous goodsInterdependenceFlow networkVehicle routing problemTask (project management)Spatial dispersion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a framework that integrates existing climate conditions with a Geographical Information System (GIS) to develop an on-demand dangerous goods (DG) routing support system. The framework focuses on mitigating the risks associated with DG transportation via route selection. Evidently, DG routing involves a number of decisions that require the consideration of multiple and sometimes conflicting risks. As a result, the framework includes a number of different routing criteria pertaining to safety, efficiency, security, and cost. The framework was applied to a large-scale transportation network representing the Metro Vancouver area. The network was represented spatially in a GIS database along with a real-time dispersion plume model to simulate a specific chemical release under local weather conditions. The results show that different routing criteria lead to different optimal route choices. The authors also compared route selection based on the Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG) for protection and isolation actions with route selection based on dispersion models. The comparison results show that, when employing the ERG in a small spill scenario, decisionmakers are at risk of exposing a large number of individuals to severe health effects. Vice versa, if the ERG was to be followed in a large spill scenario, many individuals who are not at risk would be unnecessarily evacuated. This translates into increased evacuation costs, and wastes the time and effort of emergency personnel. The study shows that these issues are properly addressed if a dispersion model is used to refine the estimation of the impact zone by including measures that are specific to the shipment.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.210
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.244 · 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