MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885172856 · doi:10.1155/2018/3853012

Clustering Algorithm for Urban Taxi Carpooling Vehicle Based on Data Field Energy

2018· article· en· W2885172856 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yao Shuang-Shuang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCluster analysisCURE data clustering algorithmData stream clusteringComputer scienceAlgorithmField (mathematics)Data miningk-medians clusteringCanopy clustering algorithmPoint (geometry)OutlierCluster (spacecraft)Correlation clusteringMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A clustering algorithm for urban taxi carpooling based on data field energy and point spacing is proposed to solve the clustering problem of taxi carpooling on urban roads. The data field energy function is used to calculate the field energy of each data point in the passenger taxi offpoint dataset. To realize the clustering of taxis, the central point, outlier, and data points of each cluster subset are discriminated according to the threshold value determined by the product of each data point field values and point spacing. The classical algorithm and proposed algorithm are compared and analyzed by using the compactness, separation, and Dunn validity index. The clustering results of the proposed algorithm are better than those of the classical clustering algorithm. In the case of cluster numbers 25, 249, 409, and 599, the algorithm has good clustering results for the taxi trajectory dataset with certain regularity in space distribution and irregular distribution in time distribution. This algorithm is suitable for the clustering of vehicles in urban traffic roads, which can provide new ideas and methods for the cluster study of urban traffic vehicles.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.245 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTransportation and Mobility InnovationsFrench-language works237,207