MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801865796 · doi:10.1155/2018/6142724

Prediction of Daily Entrance and Exit Passenger Flow of Rail Transit Stations by Deep Learning Method

2018· article· en· W2801865796 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Huaizhong Zhu, Xiaoguang Yang, Yizhe Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic Prediction and Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic transportUrban rail transitFlow (mathematics)Smart cardFunction (biology)Traffic flow (computer networking)Transit (satellite)Computer scienceTransport engineeringEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prediction of entrance and exit passenger flow of rail transit stations is one of key research focuses in the area of intelligent transportation. Based on the big data of rail transit IC card (Public Transportation Card), this paper analyzes the data of major dynamic factors having effect on entrance passenger flow and exit passenger flow of rail transit stations: weather data, atmospheric temperature data, holiday and festival data, ground index data, and elevated road data and calculates the daily entrance passenger flow and daily exit passenger flow of individual rail transit stations with data reduction. Furthermore, based on the history data of passenger flow of rail transit stations and relevant influence factors, it applies the deep learning method to choose the relatively optimal hidden layer node by means of the cut-and-try method, set up input data and labeled data, select the activation function and loss function, and use the Adam Gradient Descent Optimization Algorithm for iterative global convergence. The results verify that this method accurately predicts the daily entrance passenger flow and daily exit passenger flow of rail transit stations with the prediction error of less than 4.1%. Finally, the proposed model is compared with the linear regression model.

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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.797
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations22
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTraffic Prediction and Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207