MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388092559 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.18480

Capacity, Collision Avoidance and Shopping Rate under a Social Distancing Regime

2023· preprint· en· W4388092559 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Haitian Zhong, David Sankoff

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicComplex Systems and Time Series Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSlowdownBaseline (sea)Social distanceTrajectoryComputer scienceEconometricsSimulationEconomicsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Capacity restrictions in stores, maintained by mechanisms like spacing customer intake, became familiar features of retailing in the time of the pandemic. Shopping rates in a crowded store under a social distance regime is prone to considerable slowdown. Inspired by the random particle collision concepts of statistical mechanics, we introduce a dynamical model of the evolution of shopping rate as a function of a given customer intake rate. The slowdown of each individual customer is incorporated as an additive term to a baseline value shopping time, proportional to the number of other customers in the store. We determine analytically and by simulation the trajectory of the model as it approaches a Little's Law equilibrium, and identify the point beyond which equilibrium cannot be achieved. By relating customer shopping rate to the slowdown compared to the baseline, we can calculate the optimal intake rate leading to maximum equilibrium spending. This turns out to be the maximum rate compatible with equilibrium. The slowdown due to the largest possible number of shoppers is more than compensated for by the increased volume of shopping. This macroscopic model is validated by simulation experiments in which avoidance interactions between pairs of shoppers are responsible for shopping delays.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.414
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.004 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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 venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicComplex Systems and Time Series AnalysisFrench-language works237,207