Research of the Passenger’s Preferences and Requirements for the Travel Companion Application
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
Currently, passengers have access to a lot of information when planning their trip by public transport. They can use a lot of applications, which are not compatible with each other. Sometimes it can be even quite difficult to collect all relevant information. The creation of one application (Travel Companion), which contains all relevant data needed for optimal planning of a trip can make travelling by public transport more attractive. This paper identifies and describes conditions for a large market uptake of the Travel Companion approach by the end-users: the travellers. The paper deals with research of the passenger’s preferences and requirements for the travel companion. Research consists of four steps based on analyses of interaction points, interviews, and workshops. Every step of methodology brings interesting feedback on the design and functionality of the travel companion. The paper is based on particular results of the H2020 project - 730842 Governance of the Interoperability Framework for Rail and Intermodal Mobility (GoF4R).
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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