MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2467881888 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2016-0119

Bus service quality prediction and attribute ranking using probabilistic neural network and adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system

2016· article· en· W2467881888 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rokibul Islam, Sarder Rafee Musabbir, Irfan Ahmed, Md. Hadiuzzaman, Mehedi Hasnat, Sanjana Hossain

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBangladesh University of Engineering and Technology
KeywordsAdaptive neuro fuzzy inference systemPunctualityRanking (information retrieval)Computer scienceArtificial neural networkService qualityData miningService (business)Reliability (semiconductor)Probabilistic neural networkMachine learningFuzzy logicArtificial intelligenceEngineeringFuzzy control systemTransport engineeringTime delay neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study applies probabilistic neural network (PNN) and adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) to develop bus service quality (SQ) prediction model based on the preferences stated by users (on a scale of 1 to 5). A questionnaire survey is conducted and a data set from the survey is prepared to develop the SQ prediction model using PNN and ANFIS. Results show that ANFIS produced better prediction than PNN. The research is further extended to include ranking of the SQ attributes according to their impact on the overall result from the developed model. Attributes such as punctuality and reliability, seat availability, and service frequency were found to be the top three attributes that mostly affect the decision making process of the users. This study can aid service providers in improving the most important attributes of bus service to develop the quality of service, thereby increasing transit ridership.

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)0.001
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 score0.623
Threshold uncertainty score0.907

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 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

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207