MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381804125 · doi:10.1155/2023/5081016

A Novel Reservation and Allocation Approach of Shared Parking Slots considering the Noncritical Aisle Space

2023· article· en· W4381804125 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ke Huang, Shaozhi Hong, Zhiyuan Shi, Haoran Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Parking Systems Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersShanghai Science and Technology Development Foundation
KeywordsAisleReservationParking spaceParking guidance and informationTransport engineeringRevenueSpace (punctuation)Profit (economics)Computer scienceOperations researchBusinessEngineeringComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urban areas are experiencing a substantial increase in parking demand, which creates an imbalance due to the limited availability of parking facilities. To address this issue, effective parking management is necessary. Shared parking is an alternative solution that utilizes private plots which are vacant during the day to serve the parking needs of users engaged in nearby activities. While current parking management approaches have achieved high utilization rates for available parking slots, the use of aisle space in parking lots can alleviate oversaturated parking demands, especially during peak periods, for users with relatively short parking durations. This study aims to model the noncritical aisle space with time-space constraints in the shared parking slot allocation problem. We propose a programming model that maximizes the profit of the platform based on a reservation and allocation platform. Numerical experiments demonstrate that utilizing the aisle space can enhance the revenue and enable the platform to accommodate more requests that meet the requirements. Moreover, the presence of aisle parking slots may potentially result in slightly lower turnover rates of normal parking slots.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designObservational
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicSmart Parking Systems ResearchFrench-language works237,207