Using a Machine Learning Approach to Predict the Thailand Underground Train’s Passenger
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In today’s world, data has become an asset for businesses. Many sectors use data technology to advance their businesses. Building management is one of the processes on which numerous studies have been conducted to assist building users. Thailand has progressed in terms of transportation infrastructure and public transportation. The Metropolitan Rapid Transit (MRT) system has more than one hundred million users per year. However, crowding is a concern in the present since crowding creates a problem and reduces customer pleasure. The goal of this research is to create a machine learning model for forecasting passenger demand over time. In addition, standard data collecting equipment was used to collect data from the Metropolitan Rapid Transit (MRT) Purple Line. This line has a total of 16 stations. Station name, date, day, month, period, number of passengers, holidays, weekends, and weather are among the nine factors. Analysis approaches included the analysis phase, classification, and regression algorithm. However, the regression algorithm’s accuracy is poor and therefore cannot be used. Before using machine learning classification methods, the K-means was used to cluster the types of passengers. In addition, for this investigation, three classification methods were used: artificial neural network, random forest, and decision tree. Furthermore, the findings revealed that the artificial neural network has a high predicting accuracy. The accuracy value stated is more than 0.85 for demand over time.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".