MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998932347 · doi:10.1145/2815347.2826698

Smartphone-based Architecture for Smart Cities

2015· article· en· W1998932347 on OpenAlexaff
James Conway-Beaulieu, Austin Athaide, Roozbeh Jalali, Khalil El‐Khatib

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Mobility and Location-Based Analysis
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmart cityTraffic congestionArchitecturePopulationComputer scienceLeverage (statistics)Public transportIntelligent transportation systemUrban planningTransport engineeringComputer securityTelecommunicationsBusinessEngineeringGeographyCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urban areas now account for more than half of the world's population, with the United Nations (UN) forecasting that by 2050 this number is expected to rise up to 70 percent as a result of urban growth and migration from rural areas. Increasing population density in urban environments demands adequate provision of services and infrastructure, In addition to other major challenges including air pollution, traffic congestion, health concerns, energy and waste management. Smart cities promise to leverage advances in information and communication technology to improve the quality of life for their residents in a number of ways. There are numerous applications for smart cities but the costs associated with some of the sensors used are limiting the growth of smart city technologies. Today smartphones include powerful sensors which can be accessed through customizable applications. This paper present an architecture for using sensory data generated by smartphones in order to improve the public transportation systems. The architecture provide transit officials a real time view of user demand for their systems, accounting capabilities for each bus stop, and unparalleled planning capability for additional bus routes.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.792
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Mobility and Location-Based AnalysisFrench-language works237,207