MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056193625 · doi:10.3141/1760-14

Potential Effects of Automatic Vehicle Location and Computer-Aided Dispatch Technology on Paratransit Performance: A Simulation Study

2001· article· en· W2056193625 on OpenAlexafffund
Liping Fu, Yiqun Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsParatransitAutomatic vehicle locationReliability (semiconductor)CADTransport engineeringPublic transportEngineeringService (business)ProductivityTRIPS architectureSimulationComputer scienceTelecommunicationsEngineering drawing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automatic vehicle location (AVL) and computer-aided dispatch (CAD) systems have afforded a unique opportunity for public transit agencies to integrate these technologies in their paratransit systems for improved productivity and reliability. This opportunity has also prompted widespread interest in quantifying the benefits that can be attained from such technological enhancement. This research assesses the potential effects of AVL and CAD on the productivity and service reliability of a paratransit system. A simulation model that can realistically model AVL and CAD functionality is used in the investigation. Many cases representing variations in operating environment, such as service area, demand intensity, and proportion of real-time demand trips, are simulated for a sensitivity analysis under three assumed operational improvements—en route diversion, dwell time reduction, and periodic reoptimization. The results indicate that although AVL and CAD effectiveness varies from case to case, on average, these systems can help to substantially improve paratransit performance.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.820

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207