Berth assignment planning for multi‐line bus stops
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
SUMMARY In this paper, we study an important problem that arises with the fast development of public transportation systems: when a large number of bus lines share the same bus stop, a long queue of buses often forms when they wait to get into the stop in rush hours. This causes a significant increase of bus delay and a notable drop of traffic capacity near the bus stop. Various measures had been proposed to relieve the congestions near bus stops. However, all of them require considerable financial budgets and construction time costs. In this paper, with the concept of berth assignment redesign, a simulation‐based heuristic algorithm is proposed to make full use of exiting bus berths. In this study, a trustable simulation platform is designed, and the major influencing factors for bus stop operations are considered. The concept of risk control is also introduced to better evaluate the performance of different berth arrangement plans and makes an appropriate trade‐off between the system's efficiency and stability. Finally, a heuristic algorithm is proposed to find a sub‐optimal berth assignment plan. Tests on a typical bus stop show that this algorithm is efficient and fast. The sub‐optimal berth assignment plan obtained by this algorithm could make remarkable improvements to an actual bus stop. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it