MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069525318 · doi:10.1002/atr.5670340203

Automation of paratransit reservation, routing, and scheduling

2000· article· en· W2069525318 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ted Chira-Chavala, Geoffrey D. Gosling, Christoffel Venter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsBombardier (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParatransitReservationScheduling (production processes)AutomationTransport engineeringEngineeringComputer sciencePublic transportOperations managementComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Santa Clara County, California experienced a sharp growth in demand‐responsive paratransit ridership for individuals with disabilities, as a result of the passage of the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). This paper describes an automated paratransit system for the ADA‐type paratransit operation implemented in Santa Clara County. It automated paratransit reservation, scheduling, and routing functions. The key components of this system were a digital geographic database (DGD) and an automated trip scheduling system (ATSS). Empirical evidence after one year of operation indicates numerous benefits of this automation. There were significant reductions in the paratransit operating costs and an increase in the percent shared rides. The savings in operating costs far exceeded the annualized capital cost of automation. A user survey indicates that these improvements were achieved without degradation to service quality such as vehicle on‐time performance, invehicle travel times, vehicle response to open return, and ride comfort.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTransportation and Mobility InnovationsFrench-language works237,207