Demand Prediction of Railway Emergency Resources Based on Case-Based Reasoning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The demand prediction of emergency resources is helpful for rational allocation and optimization of emergency resources for railway rescue when emergency incident occurs. In this paper, a case base containing China railway traffic accident that has occurred since 1978 is established, and the case-based reasoning (CBR) method is applied in railway emergency resource demand predicting research. The core case attributes of railway emergencies are described. In view of the attribute types of railway emergency cases, five types of attributes, including enumeration, numerical, interval, character and fuzzy type, are considered, and the local similarity calculation models of different attributes are given. In order to avoid the problem of missing attribute in the traditional nearest neighbor algorithm, a global case similarity calculation method based on structural similarity and attribute similarity is designed. The empirical results show that case 3 is the most similar to the target case, and the calculating quantities of the proposed model are closer to the actual usage quantity and more accurate in the demand prediction of railway emergency resources, compared with the traditional empirical method. The relative errors of demand forecasts for the 9 resources have been, respectively, reduced by 15.9884%, 15.1471%, 6.4286%, 17.1429%, 66.6667%, 38.8889%, 27.5%, 0%, and 17.7778%. Therefore, the proposed model is both reasonable and applicable. The research results are of great significance to effectively deal with railway emergencies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".