MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2772756146 · doi:10.1155/2017/5656323

A Gradual Approach for Multimodel Journey Planning: A Case Study in Izmir, Turkey

2017· article· en· W2772756146 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Feriştah Dalkılıç, Yunus Doğan, Derya Birant, Alp Kut, Reyat Yılmaz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTürkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu
KeywordsDijkstra's algorithmPublic transportComputer scienceRouterGraphPlan (archaeology)Transportation planningRoute planningOperations researchMotion planningRouting (electronic design automation)Node (physics)Transport engineeringRouting algorithmShortest path problemEngineeringRobotArtificial intelligenceComputer networkRouting protocol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Planning a journey by integrating route and timetable information from diverse sources of transportation agencies such as bus, ferry, and train can be complicated. A user-friendly, informative journey planning system may simplify a plan by providing assistance in making better use of public transportation. In this study, we presented the service-oriented, multimodel Intelligent Journey Planning System, which we developed to assist travelers in journey planning. We selected Izmir, Turkey, as the pilot city for this system. The multicriteria problem is one of the well-known problems in transportation networks. Our study proposes a gradual path-finding algorithm to solve this problem by considering transfer count and travel time. The algorithm utilizes the techniques of efficient algorithms including round based public transit optimized router, transit node routing, and contraction hierarchies on transportation graph. We employed Dijkstra’s algorithm after the first stage of the path-finding algorithm by applying stage specific rules to reduce search space and runtime. The experimental results show that our path-finding algorithm takes 0.63 seconds of processing time on average, which is acceptable for the user experience.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207