MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899735731 · doi:10.1155/2018/4360516

Taxi Efficiency Measurements Based on Motorcade-Sharing Model: Evidence from GPS-Equipped Taxi Data in Sanya

2018· article· en· W2899735731 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jiawei Gui, WU Qun-qi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Office for Philosophy and Social SciencesChinese Universities Scientific FundChang'an University
KeywordsTaxisGlobal Positioning SystemTraffic congestionIntelligent transportation systemTransport engineeringComputer scienceField (mathematics)TelecommunicationsEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urban traffic congestion has become a global problem and has garnered special importance in recent years in the transportation sector, especially in taxi markets. To unlock the potential of Internet of Vehicles (IoV) in Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), it was vital to make efficiency measurements. In this study, Distance Formula was built to calculate distances by GPS data based on mathematical equations, and Motorcade-Sharing (MS) Model was proposed to improve the efficiency of collaborative vehicles. The experimental data of 2191 GPS-equipped taxis in Sanya of China was adopted to make comparisons between original results and modelled results. Measurement results showed that MS Model had 10.54% more leisure taxis, reduced 5 overdriving taxis, and saved 33.73% running distance in total compared to the original. This indicated that the application of MS Model could not only alleviate urban traffic congestion but also optimize urban taxi markets, and it has a bright future in the field of taxi and other collaborative vehicles. Future directions could be improving MS Model and expanding data.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.400
Threshold uncertainty score0.760

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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