MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035971144 · doi:10.1080/15472450601122256

Individual Trip Destination Estimation in a Transit Smart Card Automated Fare Collection System

2007· article· en· W2035971144 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intelligent Transportation Systems · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmart cardTransit (satellite)Computer scienceData collectionEstimationProcess (computing)Transport engineeringReal-time computingPublic transportEngineeringComputer securitySystems engineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Smart Card Automated Fare Collection (SCAFC) system is an Intelligent Transportation System that is becoming increasingly popular among transit operators. In addition to fare control, the data collected by these systems can be very useful in transit planning. Many SCAFC systems store the location where the passenger boarded due to the positioning device carried onboard; however, in most systems alighting locations are not validated and, thus, not stored in databases. This article presents a model to estimate the destination location for each individual boarding a bus with a smart card. Experiments carried out with a database programming approach show that the data must be thoroughly validated and corrected prior to the estimation process. The first application of the model provided a success rate of 66% for destination estimation, reaching about 80% at peak hours. Further research will tackle the issues of error detection, correction, and link results, comparing them with those of other data sources.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score0.873

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.238 · 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