Supply and Demand Relationship of Taxi Battery Exchange Based on Big Data: A Case Study of Beijing, China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The power exchange mode is widely applied in the rental field as an efficient energy supply method for new energy vehicles. The power supply-demand relationship analysis swaps. In particular, the quantitative spatial analysis of sub-regions is of great significance for optimizing the spatial layout of power swapping stations, better operation of taxis, and more efficient power swapping stations. Therefore, this paper analyzes the correlation between the ten states of taxis and the corresponding power exchange. The present analysis targets the limitations in the existing methods to analyze the power exchange supply and demand and utilizing the big data pertaining to real-time taxi operation, order-taking mode, and station-swapping operation. As per the correlations, a calculation method is established to determine the power exchange demand based on the location where the orders are received and the matching method of the power exchange supply and demand. Besides verifying the scientific nature and feasibility of the method empirically, this study also ensured its great flexibility, which allows it to adapt to more complicated social scenarios. The big data analysis indicates that determining the spatial distribution of demand based on the location from where the taxi orders are received is far more rational and practical. Thus, this study has a vital role in guiding the location and layout of interchange stations.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".