Modeling the Curb Parking Price in Urban Center District of China Using TSM-RAM Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parking demand forecasting is an important part of urban parking planning and is also an important basis for the development of parking facilities. The primary objective of this study was to explore multiple factors that affect the curb parking price (CPP) and the changing rules of the curb parking price (CPP) with these factors and to predict the CPP in terms of urban mobility. The data were collected through a statistical survey that was administered in 81 cities in China. The cities were divided into three categories: rich cities (RCs), poor cities (PCs), and tourist cities (TCs). Both the time series method (TSM) and regression analysis method (RAM) were developed to simultaneously examine the factors associated with the CPP among parking users. The results showed that TSM and RAM can account for common urban curb parking prices. The prediction results showed that the CPP is affected by the number of urban dwellers (UD), the prevalence of car ownership (CO), and the per capita disposable income (PCDI) of urban residents; the CPP can be predicted by a model built on the basis of the above three influencing factors. The results can enhance our understanding of the factors that affect CPP. Based on the results, some suggestions regarding the use of the CPP range in parking policy planning were discussed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".