MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W190534554 · doi:10.1002/atr.166

Comparison of pedestrian trip generation models

2011· article· en· W190534554 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nam Seok Kim, Yusak O. Susilo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMaryland Department of TransportationU.S. Department of Transportation
KeywordsPoisson regressionNegative binomial distributionAkaike information criterionEconometricsPedestrianRegression analysisDeviance (statistics)StatisticsCount dataPoisson distributionVariablesRegressionMathematicsTransport engineeringEngineeringPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY Using Poisson regression and negative binomial regression, this paper presents an empirical comparison of four different regression models for the estimation of pedestrian demand at the regional level and finds the most appropriate model with reference to the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) 2001 data for the Baltimore (USA) region. The results show that Poisson regression seems to be more appropriate for pedestrian trip generation modeling in terms of χ2 ratio test, Pseudo R2, and Akaike's information criterion (AIC). However, R2 based on deviance residuals and estimated log‐likelihood value at convergence confirmed the empirical studies that negative binomial regression is more appropriate for the over‐dispersed dependent variable than Poisson regression. Copyright © 2011 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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced Transportation→Same topicUrban Transport and Accessibility→French-language works237,207→