MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

UNET and UNETR Based Frameworks for Predicting the Short-Term Spatiotemporal Demand of E-Scooter Sharing Services

2024· article· en· W4408696948 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Sahnoon, Aaron Manuel, Merkebe Getachew Demissie, Roberto Souza

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSharing Economy and Platforms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerm (time)Computer scienceOn demandMultimedia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several factors have contributed to the emergence of shared on-demand mobility services in recent years, including urbanization, technological advancements, environmental concerns, changing consumer behavior, regulatory changes, and cost savings. Among these services, shared electric micro-mobility services represent the latest entrant to the market. One significant challenge for shared mobility services is that demand for these services can vary significantly throughout the day and across different locations, leading to imbalances in vehicle availability. This can result in long wait times for users, negatively impacting user experience and discouraging future service usage. In this study, we propose the use of the state-of-the-art deep learning models, such as the UNET and UNETR, for short-term spatiotemporal micromobility demand prediction. Our study reveals that UNETR surpasses the baseline model in predicting demand for the entire region of interest. For the next-hour pick-up and drop-off demand prediction, UNETR achieves mean absolute errors of 0.0163 and 0.0158, respectively, while for the next 24-hour prediction, the errors are 0.0166 and 0.0158, respectively. Additionally, UNET outperforms the baseline model and UNETR at the nonzero demand level, with mean absolute errors of 1.4886 and 1.4430 for the next-hour prediction, and 1.5607 and 1.5339 for the next 24-hour prediction, respectively.

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)0.000
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 score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.237
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 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSharing Economy and PlatformsFrench-language works237,207