Uma análise comparativa de técnicas de detecção de pontos de parada em ambientes urbanos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este artigo apresenta um framework para a criação de conjuntos de dados de referência (ground-truth) destinados à detecção automatizada de pontos de parada. O framework utiliza dados do OpenStreetMap e o SUMO (Simulation of Urban MObility) como fontes de informação essenciais. Além disso, são implementados e comparados métodos amplamente discutidos na literatura para a detecção de pontos de parada, utilizando conjuntos de dados gerados por meio desse framework. Os resultados da análise confirmam a confiabilidade dos métodos estudados. O estudo também introduz novos algoritmos à análise, que demonstram ser promissores na detecção de pontos de parada, além de identificar áreas para melhorias futuras. Destacam-se a necessidade de explorar análises adicionais que considerem métodos alternativos de aquisição de dados e avaliem seus impactos na detecção de pontos de parada.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".