MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2531520206 · doi:10.1002/atr.1416

Optimal design of a short‐turning strategy considering seat availability

2016· article· en· W2531520206 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yuxiong Ji, Xiyu Yang, Yuchuan Du

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsScheduleMarkov chainMarkov modelMarkov decision processService (business)CrowdingOperations researchMarkov processProcess (computing)Computer scienceTransport engineeringEngineeringSimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary We develop a methodology to optimize the schedule coordination of a full‐stop service pattern and a short‐turning service pattern on a bus route. To capture the influence of bus crowding and seat availability on passengers' riding experience, we develop a Markov model to describe the seat‐searching process of a passenger and an approach to estimate the transition probabilities of the Markov model. An optimization model that incorporates the Markov model is proposed to design the short‐turning strategy. The proposed model minimizes the total cost, which includes operational cost, passengers' waiting time cost and passengers' in‐vehicle travel time cost. Algorithm is developed to produce optimal values of the decision variables. The proposed methodology is evaluated in a case study. Compared with methodologies that ignore the effect of bus crowding, the proposed methodology could better balance bus load along the route and between two service patterns, provide passengers with better riding experience and reduce the total cost. In addition, it is shown that the optimal design of the short‐turning strategy is sensitive to seat capacity. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207