A Dynamic Information-Based Parking Guidance for Megacities considering Both Public and Private Parking
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The constantly increasing number of cars in the megacities is causing severe parking problems. To resolve this problem, many cities adopt parking guidance system as a part of intelligent transportation system (ITS). However, the current parking guidance system stays in its infant stage since the obtainable information is limited. To enhance parking management in the megacity and to provide better parking guidance to drivers, this study introduces an intelligent parking guidance system and proposes a new methodology to operate it. The introduced system considers both public parking and private parking so that it is designed to maximize the use of spatial resources of the city. The proposed methodology is based on the dynamic information related parking in the city and suggests the best parking space to each driver. To do this, two kinds of utility functions which assess parking spaces are developed. Using the proposed methodology, different types of parking management policies are tested through the simulation. According to the experimental test, it is shown that the centrally managed parking guidance can give better results than individually preferred parking guidance. The simulation test proves that both a driver’s benefits and parking management of a city from various points of view can be improved by using the proposed methodology.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it