MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1528572877 · doi:10.1002/atr.1309

A multi‐class transit assignment model for estimating transit passenger flows—a case study of Beijing subway network

2015· article· en· W1528572877 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Bingfeng Si, Liping Fu, Jianfeng Liu, Sajad Shiravi, Ziyou Gao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaState Key Laboratory of Rail Traffic Control and SafetyNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsBeijingUrban rail transitTransport engineeringTransit (satellite)Class (philosophy)Computer scienceShanghai chinaEstimationFlow networkTraffic flow (computer networking)PreferenceRail transitPublic transportScheme (mathematics)Operations researchEngineeringChinaMathematical optimizationStatisticsGeographyMathematicsComputer networkArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary This paper describes a case study comparing a multi‐class transit assignment model with its single class counterpart for estimating the passenger flows of the Beijing subway network—one of the largest railway transit networks in the world. Multi‐class traffic assignment has been widely considered as a theoretically sound approach to capture the inherent variation in users' route choice behavior. However, few empirical studies have been devoted to showing the effectiveness of this approach in improving the accuracy of the underlying passenger flow estimation process. In this research, a passenger classification scheme is proposed on the basis of a dataset from a large stated preference survey conducted in the City of Beijing, China. Separate generalized cost functions are calibrated for different classes of subway users in Beijing and applied in a multi‐class transit assignment model for estimating passenger flows over a subway network. The case study has shown that the proposed multi‐class approach resulted in significantly improved estimation results with an average estimation error of less than 15% on the transfer flows as compared with 30% for the single class model. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations40
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207