MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913657240 · doi:10.1109/tsg.2019.2896697

PEV Charging Infrastructure Siting Based on Spatial–Temporal Traffic Flow Distribution

2019· article· en· W2913657240 on OpenAlexafffund
Ahmed Abdalrahman

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Smart Grid · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceProfitability indexBenchmark (surveying)Traffic flow (computer networking)Greenhouse gasInteger programmingFlow networkTransport engineeringMathematical optimizationEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) offer a solution to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and decrease fossil fuel consumption. PEV charging infrastructure siting must ensure not only a satisfactory charging service for PEV users but also a high utilization and profitability for the chosen facility locations. Thus, the various types of charging facilities should be located based on an accurate location estimation of the potential PEV charging demand. In this paper, we propose a spatial–temporal flow capturing location model. This model determines the locations of various types of charging facilities based on the spatial–temporal distribution of traffic flows. We utilize the dynamic traffic assignment model to estimate the time-varying traffic flows on the road transportation network. Then, we cluster the traffic flow dataset into distinct categories using the Gaussian mixture model and site each type of charging facilities to capture a specific traffic pattern. We formulate our siting model as an mixed integer linear programming optimization problem. The model is evaluated based on two benchmark transportation networks, and the simulation results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.176 · 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.

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

Citations45
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Smart GridSame topicElectric Vehicles and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207