MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310137665 · doi:10.18280/isi.270511

An Effective Approach for Smart Parking Management

2022· article· en· W4310137665 on OpenAlex
Tawfeeq Shawly, Ahmed A. Alsheikhy, Yahia Said, Husam Lahza

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueIngénierie des systèmes d information · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Parking Systems Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaymentComputer scienceTransport engineeringManagement systemParking guidance and informationSpace (punctuation)Operations researchEngineeringOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drivers and motorists get annoyed when it takes a long time to find a vacant space in a parking lot. Looking for parking has become a headache as the number of vehicles in urban cities and the cost of land concurrently increase. There is an urgent need for innovation in smart parking systems. Currently, investors and contractors pay laborers to operate and maintain smart parking systems. Staff duties may include opening and closing gates, giving directions to drivers and motorists, and managing payments associated with the lot. This article proposes a feasible, dependable, and smart algorithm for managing a parking system. This algorithm utilizes image processing techniques to provide real-time data. No labor is required to operate and handle the system. The system itself automatically handles all operations except maintenance. Furthermore, this algorithm is more cost-effective than other similar systems and equally effective. Numerous simulation scenarios were carried out on MATLAB to verify its developed approach. A comparison evaluation juxtaposes the proposed approach with other solutions in the literature. This evaluation clearly indicates that the presented method outperforms other solutions in terms of technologies being used, devices being utilized, and cost.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.764
Threshold uncertainty score0.734

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it