MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157312086 · doi:10.1177/0037549714562994

A simulation as a service methodology with application for crowd modeling, simulation and visualization

2014· article· en· W2157312086 on OpenAlexaff
Sixuan Wang, Gabriel Wainer

Bibliographic record

VenueSIMULATION · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEvacuation and Crowd Dynamics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCrowdsWorkflowVisualizationCrowd simulationModeling and simulationService (business)ReusabilityDEVSCloud computingSoftware deploymentSoftware engineeringSystems engineeringHuman–computer interactionSimulationEngineeringData miningDatabaseSoftware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crowd modeling and simulation (M&S) has been used to support the analysis of the behavior of crowds, in order to predict the impact of pedestrian movement and to test design alternatives. In recent years, crowd M&S has become more complex, and new technologies such as CAD (computer-aided design) and BIM (building information modeling) authoring tools are being used to support the process. There are challenges in adopting these technologies due to the lack of automation and integration of these tools for crowd M&S. We propose a method based on a distributed architecture with simulation in the cloud, and composition using workflows. In particular, we adopt a model-driven engineering approach to extract data from CAD/BIM authoring tools, Cell-DEVS theory for crowd modeling, simulation as a service to execute simulation remotely, and three-dimensional visualization. Finally, we present a case study for crowd evacuation, discussing the advantages of the proposed architecture. We show the advantages obtained when using distributed deployment, simulation-based design and collaborative development and we discuss how this facilitates the crowd behavior study and improves reusability in crowd M&S.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.311 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations30
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSIMULATIONSame topicEvacuation and Crowd DynamicsFrench-language works237,207