MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914093555 · doi:10.1155/2019/6372597

Public Transport Driver Identification System Using Histogram of Acceleration Data

2019· article· en· W2914093555 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nuttun Virojboonkiate, Adsadawut Chanakitkarnchok, Peerapon Vateekul, Kultida Rojviboonchai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic Prediction and Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChulalongkorn University
KeywordsHistogramPreprocessorIdentification (biology)AccelerationComputer scienceData pre-processingClassifier (UML)Public transportReal-time computingEngineeringArtificial intelligenceTransport engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces a driver identification system architecture for public transport which utilizes only acceleration sensor data. The system architecture consists of three main modules which are the data collection, data preprocessing, and driver identification module. Data were collected from real operation of campus shuttle buses. In the data preprocessing module, a filtering module is proposed to remove the inactive period of the public transport data. To extract the unique behavior of the driver, a histogram of acceleration sensor data is proposed as a main feature of driver identification. The performance of our system is evaluated in many important aspects, considering axis of acceleration, sliding window size, number of drivers, classifier algorithms, and driving period. Additionally, the case study of impostor detection is implemented by modifying the driver identification module to identify a car thief or carjacking. Our driver identification system can achieve up to 99% accuracy and the impostor detection system can achieve the F1 score of 0.87. As a result, our system architecture can be used as a guideline for implementing the real driver identification system and further driver identification researches.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

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 communication0.0000.002
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations19
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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