MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403919561 · doi:10.1109/sm63044.2024.10733519

Towards Frictionless Public Transit: A Brief Review of Automatic Fare Collection

2024· review· en· W4403919561 on OpenAlexaff
Kyler Witvoet, Carlos Vidal, Tyler Stiene, Ali Emadi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic transportComputer scienceTransit (satellite)Data collectionTransport engineeringEngineeringMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As urbanization expands globally, efficient public transportation becomes crucial for reducing traffic, emissions, and commuting times. Current fare collection systems hinder these goals due to longer boarding times and un-optimized routes. Recent attempts to solve this come in the form of novel Automatic Fare Collection (AFC) systems that predict user routes mainly using transactional data collected from their trip. These systems attempt to eliminate the need for physical payments, and offer benefits like reduced boarding times and improved route optimization. However, due to additional hardware they face challenges such as increased costs and infrastructure complexity. This paper reviews various fare collection systems, highlighting the shift from traditional Check In Be Out (CIBO) systems to innovative Check In Check Out (CICO) systems to emerging Be In Be Out (BIBO) models that leverage modern sensor and mobile technologies. Additionally, the effectiveness of a software-based approach to BIBO AFC is demonstrated, which could replace or complement the existing hardware-based systems. The challenges and advancements in fare and data collection methods are discussed, offering insights into future trends that could lead to more sustainable urban living and efficient public transit systems.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.888
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207