A Distribution Model for Shared Parking in Residential Zones that Considers the Utilization Rate and the Walking Distance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Efficient parking tends to be challenging in most large cities in China. Drivers often spend substantial amounts of time looking for parking lots while driving at low speeds, thereby resulting in interference with road traffic. This paper focuses on efficiently allocating parking spaces to the demanders. A double-objective model is proposed that considers both the utilizing rate and the walking distance. First, managers want to utilize parking resources fully. Therefore, they tend to prioritize the efficient distribution of parking spaces in response to parking demands. However, demanders typically choose parking spaces according to convenience. The second objective is the acceptable walking distance from the parking space to the destination. The particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm is used to solve this model. We collected parking demand and supply data in a central business district (CBD) of Harbin in China and evaluated the feasibility of the model. The results demonstrate that the proposed model increases the occupying rates of parking lots in residential zones while decreasing the walking distance. The shared use of parking spaces maximizes the utility and alleviates the shortage of parking spaces in downtown.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".