An advanced optimization framework for cross-docking site selection in global supply chains using an enhanced k-means clustering algorithm integrated with geographic information systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study introduces a novel mathematical framework for the optimal placement of cross-docking facilities within international logistics networks. The model employs an extended K-means clustering algorithm integrated with Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to enhance spatial decision-making. A comprehensive review of the existing literature highlights that transportation and warehousing costs represent the most substantial components of overall logistics expenditures. In international land transportation, direct point-to-point delivery is often impractical, thereby necessitating intermediate transshipment through cross-docking facilities. Inefficient selection of these intermediary nodes can result in elevated storage and transportation expenses. Accurate identification of optimal cross-docking locations, therefore, has significant potential to reduce both transport distances and associated costs in global logistics operations. To examine this premise, two comparative scenarios were developed. The first assumes that cross-docking operations are conducted at national borders prior to international shipment, while the second applies the proposed extended K-means clustering algorithm integrated with GIS to determine optimal cross-docking points beyond the border within the broader international supply chain network. Both scenarios were subjected to numerical simulations and analytical assessments to evaluate their relative performance in minimizing transportation distances. The results reveal that the GIS-supported extended K-means approach produces substantially shorter international transport routes compared with the border-based cross-docking strategy. These findings emphasize the strategic importance of accurately locating cross-docking facilities in international logistics planning. By optimizing cross-docking placement, logistics managers can enhance transportation efficiency, reduce operational costs, and strengthen organizational competitiveness in the increasingly dynamic global marketplace.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".