MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362603592 · doi:10.1155/2023/8870004

Optimizing the Transfer Process of Air-Rail Integration Services: A Simulation Approach

2023· article· en· W4362603592 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Min Yang, Shiyu Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicAviation Industry Analysis and Trends
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSoutheast University
KeywordsInternational airportTransport engineeringChinaProcess (computing)Service (business)Transfer (computing)Mode (computer interface)EngineeringComputer scienceOperations researchBusinessMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the progress of regional integration in China and the growth of passenger travel demand, a single travel mode has been unable to meet passengers’ cross-regional, multimodal, and personalized travel needs. Air-rail integration service (ARIS) is gradually catching on with travellers. Compared with developed countries, ARIS remains in its infancy in China, with a low penetration rate. Against this backdrop, this study presents an SP survey of ARIS passengers at Shijiazhuang Zhengding International Airport as an example and analyses the factors affecting their transfer process using multiple ordinal logistic regression. The satisfaction analysis results help to construct a simulation model of ARIS of Shijiazhuang Zhengding International Airport by using AnyLogic to verify the optimization effect. The research results show a significant impact on the ARIS transfer process by gender, education, occupation, travel mode, travel cost, location of the shuttle bus, arrival frequency of shuttle bus, manual baggage check-in service, self-service check-in, and the performance of security check equipment. The adoption of optimization measures will reduce ARIS shuttle bus, baggage check-in, and security check-in times by 68%, 50%, and 45%, respectively.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.614
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicAviation Industry Analysis and TrendsFrench-language works237,207