MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999524808 · doi:10.1155/2020/7081628

Quantifying the Impact of Rainfall on Taxi Hailing and Operation

2020· article· en· W2999524808 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jian Sun, Dong He, Guoyang Qin, Ye Tian

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersScience and Technology Commission of Shanghai MunicipalityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsTaxisGlobal Positioning SystemTransport engineeringEnvironmental scienceSignificant differenceStatistical analysisComputer scienceStatisticsMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adverse weathers are well-known to impact the operation of transportation systems, including taxis. This paper utilizes taxi GPS waypoint data to investigate the quantitative impact of rainfall on taxi hailing and taxi operations to help improve service quality on rainy days. Through statistical analysis, the study proves that it is more difficult to hail taxis on rainy days, especially during morning peak hours. By modelling the difference value of factors for rainfall and nonrainfall conditions in a multivariate regression model and attaining the significance and elasticity of each factor, passenger demand, taxi supply, search time and velocity are proved to be the significant factors that lower the taxis’ level of service on rainy days. Among them, the number of passengers and taxis are two factors that have the greatest impact. It is also shown that there is no significant difference in the total taxi supply and passenger demand between rainfall and nonrainfall conditions, but a dramatic change in the spatial distribution is discovered. The results suggest that instead of simply providing more taxis on rainy days, optimally dispatching taxicabs to high demand regions can be a more effective solution.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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