Performance Evaluation of Subway Signage:Part I - Methodology
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An integrated, format consistent and accessibility facile information signage system is not only a basic feature of any subway station, but also responsible for the smooth and well-organized operation of the subway service. To identify the deficiency and drawback of existing signs in a subway station and further recover and improve the signage function, a signage performance evaluation is recommended. The performance evaluation should consider three aspects: signage integration, standard format and optimal visibility. In this study a methodology performed in three stages provides support for consistent evaluation of signage systems of subway stations, with respect to the first aspect – signage integration. Utility zone is introduced as a new concept to identify various areas with traveling functions during a given trip. Signs are classified into three major categories while more categories can be defined as one may seek to improve the signage. Guidelines for signage implementation are prescribed based on the signage definitions of each category. The methodology proposed here potentially can be applied to other transportation facilities. Due to space limitation a companion paper titled, Performance Evaluation of Subway Signage: Part II – A Case Study, demonstrates how the methodology proposed here is applied to a subway station in Montreal, Quebec.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.040 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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 it