MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969003068 · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2935106

Train Dispatching Management With Data- Driven Approaches: A Comprehensive Review and Appraisal

2019· review· en· W2969003068 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRailway Systems and Energy Efficiency
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersState Key Laboratory of Rail Traffic Control and SafetyNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaChina Railway
KeywordsKey (lock)Computer scienceOperations researchData scienceIndustrial engineeringEngineeringComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Train dispatching (TD) is at the forefront of all rail operations that transport passengers or goods. Recent technological advances and the explosion of digital data have introduced data-driven methods (DDMs) in rail operations. In this study, DDMs on the TD problem are briefly explored, focusing on relevant studies on delay distribution, delay propagation, and timetable rescheduling. Data-driven TD methods, including statistical methods (SM), graphical models (GM), and machine learning (ML) methods are reviewed. Then, key issues in establishing different data-driven models for the TD problem are addressed. Subsequently, ML methods are considered to be among the most promising DDMs that lead to innovative TD methods, relying on rich data obtained from train operations. This study emphasizes the potentials for designing new alternatives in the three key fields of interest and provides directions for further research on TD. Future research, including the ML-driven TD and intelligent TD, were discussed in this study.

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.199
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.161 · 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