MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2243100029

IMPLEMENTING PASSENGER INFORMATION, ENTERTAINMENT, AND SECURITY SYSTEMS IN LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT

2003· article· en· W2243100029 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Valentin Scinteie

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research E-Circular · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntertainmentPublic transportRevenuePassenger informationBusinessGovernment (linguistics)Transit (satellite)Transport engineeringComputer securityFinanceEngineeringComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Passenger information, entertainment, and security systems are becoming indispensable in light rail transit (LRT) and other mass transit transportation modes. They respond to the changes underway in the railways and mass transit global environments, such as government debt reduction, demands of the aging population, integration of disabled people in society, private-public partnerships, utilizing information technology to lower costs, improved customer services, and enhanced commuter safety and security. Several major cities (New York; Montreal, Quebec; Hong Kong; Santiago, Chile) around the world have successfully introduced passenger information, entertainment, and security technologies that also allow for the generation of advertising revenues. Before implementing new passenger information, entertainment, and security systems, the operator needs to carefully assess the technical solution to be implemented, the impact on passengers in terms of satisfaction and increased ridership, the advertising potential and new revenue streams, and the set up of media and security operations. The methodologies to implement emergency assistance, safety, and public information via real time electronic customer displays, audio systems, and surveillance systems are described.

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)0.004
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score0.603

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research E-CircularSame topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207