MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768649331 · doi:10.1155/2017/1812045

The Impact of Bottom-Up Parking Information Provision in a Real-Life Context: The Case of Antwerp

2017· article· en· W2768649331 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Geert Tasseron, Karel Martens

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Parking Systems Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReservationOccupancyContext (archaeology)Parking guidance and informationTransport engineeringComputer scienceParking lotSimulationEngineeringArchitectural engineeringGeographyCivil engineeringComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A number of studies have analyzed the possible impacts of bottom-up parking information or parking reservation systems on parking dynamics in abstract simulation environments. In this paper, we take these efforts one step further by investigating the impacts of these systems in a real-life context: the center of the city of Antwerp, Belgium. In our simulation, we assume that all on-street and off-street parking places are equipped with technology able to transmit their occupancy status to so-called smart cars, which can receive information and reserve a parking place. We employ PARKAGENT, an agent-based simulation model, to simulate the behavior of smart and regular cars. We obtain detailed data on parking demand from FEATHERS, an activity-based transport model. The simulation results show that parking information and reservation hardly impact search time but do reduce walking distance for smart cars, leading to a reduction in total parking time, that is, the sum of search time and walking time. Reductions in search time occur only in zones with high occupancy rates, while a drop in walking distance is especially observed in low occupancy areas. Societal benefits of parking information and reservation are limited, because of the low impact on search time and the possible negative health effects of reduced walking distance.

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 score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicSmart Parking Systems ResearchFrench-language works237,207