MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318192376 · doi:10.31219/osf.io/sv6cg

Methods for Analyzing System Performance and User Experience Using WiFi Connection Data

2023· preprint· en· W4318192376 on OpenAlexaffabout
Aidan Grenville, Willem Klumpenhouwer, Natalie Chui, Amer Shalaby

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Mobility and Location-Based Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBluetoothReliability (semiconductor)Computer scienceData collectionPublic transportService (business)Measure (data warehouse)Transit (satellite)Automatic vehicle locationTransport engineeringReal-time computingTelecommunicationsWirelessDatabaseGlobal Positioning SystemEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Typical performance measurements of public transit operations make use of vehicle-based data such as automated vehicle location data, or passenger-based data at specific fare collection points. Ideally, the performance of a transit system from a reliability and passenger experience should be measured through individual passenger journeys. The growing prevalence of smartphones provides one potential source for this analysis, as passive methods such as WiFi, cellular, and Bluetooth connection data allow us to observe devices as they move throughout the system. In this study we present a collection of methods and performance measures for using WiFi connection data to measure various aspects of customer experience and reliability, including methods for detecting train arrivals at platforms, estimating wait times, measuring origin-destination travel time variation, and developing profiles of various journey types for comparison. In contrast with many other advances towards passenger-based measures, these methods do not require combining diverse datasets to generate useful results. These methods are applied to data from the WiFi service in the subway system in Toronto, Canada.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.855
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.290
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Mobility and Location-Based AnalysisFrench-language works237,207