MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117325248 · doi:10.1016/j.tre.2025.104626

A comparison of cost-sharing models in horizontal cooperative routing

2025· article· en· W7117325248 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Part E Logistics and Transportation Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Routing Optimization Methods
Canadian institutionsHEC MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStability (learning theory)Measure (data warehouse)Gini coefficientRouting (electronic design automation)Yield (engineering)Vehicle routing problemDispersion (optics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We develop and compare several cost-sharing models for cooperative vehicle routing problems formulated under various objectives and constraints. Our study is motivated by a real-world case involving smallholder farmers in the Province of Quebec. We examine the issues of fairness and stability in cooperative routing, and we show that coalitions served by single routes are sufficient to impose stability conditions. To evaluate equity, we use the Gini coefficient to measure the dispersion of individual savings. Hence we can analyze the trade-offs between fairness and stability. We demonstrate that widely used fairness proxies do not necessarily yield equitable outcomes. We test our methodology on randomly generated instances and on a Quebec-based case study.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.765

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.444
Teacher spread0.280 · 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