MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2933004688 · doi:10.1155/2019/2751916

Determination of Bus Crowding Coefficient Based on Passenger Flow Forecasting

2019· article· en· W2933004688 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zhongyi Zuo, Guangchuan Yang, Yunqi Zhang, Jiawen Yin, Hongsheng Ge

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic Prediction and Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomnessCloud computingComputer scienceIdentification (biology)CrowdingCoefficient of determinationSimulationReal-time computingStatisticsMathematicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To improve bus passengers’ degree of comfort, it is necessary to determine the real-time crowd coefficient in the bus. With this concern, this paper employed the RBF Neural Networks approach to predict the number of passengers in the bus based on historical data. To minimize the impact of the randomness of passenger flow on the determination of bus crowd coefficient, a cloud model-based bus crowd coefficient identification method was proposed. This paper first selected the performance measurements for determining bus crowd coefficient and calculated the digital characteristics of the cloud model based on the boundary values of the selected performance measures under six Levels-of-Service (LOSs). Then the subclouds obtained under the six LOSs were synthesized into a standard cloud. According to the predicted number of passengers in the bus, the passenger density and loading frequency were calculated, which were imported into the cloud generator to set up the bus crowd coefficient identification model. By calculating the crowd degrees of identification cloud and template cloud at each site, this paper determined the crowed coefficient of each bus station. Finally, this paper took the bus line No. 10 in Dalian city as case study to verify the proposed model. It was found that the crowd coefficients of the selected route ranged from 60.265 to 109.825, and the corresponding LOSs ranged between C and F. The method of discriminating bus crowding coefficient can not only effectively determine the congestion coefficient, but also effectively avoid the fuzziness and randomness of the crowding coefficient judgment in the bus, which has strong theoretical and practical significance.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.556
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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