MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390948577 · doi:10.1080/01441647.2024.2305202

Modelling parking behaviour of commercial vehicles: a scoping review

2024· review· en· W4390948577 on OpenAlexafffund
Farah Ghizzawi, Alia Galal, Matthew J. Roorda

Bibliographic record

VenueTransport Reviews · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Parking Systems Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTransport engineeringParking guidance and informationEconomic shortageCommercial vehicleService (business)Park and rideCar parkingBusinessEngineeringMarketingPublic transportGovernment (linguistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parking in dense urban areas is a major challenge for last mile logistics.Parking shortage and policies that do not address commercial vehicles' needs often lead these vehicles to park illegally.This paper conducts a scoping literature review on the parking behaviours of commercial freight and service vehicles, methods used to model these behaviours, and factors that determine their outcomes.Thirty-four studies are included in the review.It is found that commercial vehicles' parking behaviours mainly comprise parking location and type choices including illegal parking, parking duration, and parking cruising.Methods used to model these behaviours primarily include discrete-choice modelling, regression analysis, survival analysis and simulation.We identify key knowledge gaps and provide insights on research opportunities in modelling more complex parking decisions, investigating parking cruising of commercial vehicles, evaluating the implications of freight demand management, and developing data fusion techniques.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations15
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransport ReviewsSame topicSmart Parking Systems ResearchFrench-language works237,207