MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Estimation of Travel Distance

2014· other· en· W1951930509 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online · 2014
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEuclidean distanceDistance measuresNorm (philosophy)Empirical researchEconometricsRelevance (law)MathematicsComputer scienceEuclidean geometryStatisticsArtificial intelligenceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this chapter we discuss the use of empirical distance functions in business models. The traditional role of distance functions has been to estimate travel distances or times in a given transportation system. We examine the properties of distance functions that make them useful in this role, and review popular ones such as the Euclidean norm, rectangular (or Manhattan) norm, and the more general weighted ℓ p norm and block norm. Statistical methods used to estimate the parameters of an empirical distance function from actual travel distance data are presented. This includes a review of the various goodness‐of‐fit criteria appearing in the literature, and a discussion of their error term distributions. The usefulness of empirical distance functions in modeling service systems of ever‐increasing size and complexity, and their growing relevance in operational and strategic decision processes, are also investigated. Future areas of research are identified in closing.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.511
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.298 · 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