Logistics Hub Location for High-Speed Rail Freight Transport—Case Ottawa–Quebec City Corridor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This paper develops a novel, interdisciplinary framework for optimizing high-speed rail (HSR) freight logistics hubs in the Ottawa–Quebec City corridor, addressing critical gaps in geospatial mismatches, static optimization limitations, and narrow sustainability scopes found in the existing literature. Methods: The research methodology integrates a hybrid graph neural network-reinforcement learning (GNN-RL) architecture that encodes 412 nodes into a dynamic graph with adaptive edge weights, fractal accessibility (α = 1.78) derived from fractional calculus (α = 0.75) to model non-linear urban growth patterns, and a multi-criteria sustainability evaluation framework embedding shadow pricing for externalities. Methodologically, the framework is validated through global sensitivity analysis and comparative testing against classical optimization models using real-world geospatial, operational, and economic datasets from the corridor. Results: Key findings demonstrate the framework’s superiority. Empirical results show an obvious reduction in emissions and lower logistics costs compared to classical models, with Pareto-optimal hubs identified. These hubs achieve the most GDP coverage of the corridor, reconciling economic efficiency with environmental resilience and social equity. Conclusions: This research establishes a replicable methodology for mid-latitude freight corridors, advancing low-carbon logistics through the integration of GNN-RL optimization, fractal spatial analysis, and sustainability assessment—bridging economic viability, environmental decarbonization, and social equity in HSR freight network design.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".