Intelligent transportation systems: an impact analysis for Michigan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Are Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) affecting transportation industry only? ITS are currently perceived as a contribution to transportation industry only; however, by quantitatively analyzing the economic impact of ITS on the state of Michigan, this work attempts to answer the posed question. The quantitative economic analysis is carried out through the well‐established Leontief's Input–Output (I‐O) model. This model is employed to establish ITS effects on each industry by detailing RIMS II I‐O tables for Michigan constructed from the national I‐O tables. Major savings by ITS identified as reduced time delays and fuel cost savings are quantitatively simulated thereby generating an overall cost reduction factor which is incorporated in Michigan I‐O tables to modify their characteristics. ITS impact on each industry in I‐O tables is achieved by maximizing effects on certain selected industries. Impact multipliers that are customary macro‐economic measures for I‐O analysis are then calculated for all the aggregated industries. Multipliers comparison for the three cases namely before ITS implementation, conventional improvement methods, and after ITS implementation is evaluated. These values suggest greater economic benefits that may be achieved by statewide implementation of the ITS. Copyright © 2010 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".