Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several recent mass evacuations, including those in advance of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and Hurricane Rita in Houston, have demonstrated the effects of limited planning for carless populations. The lack of planning left a significant portion of the mobility-limited population of both these cities unable to flee in advance of the storms. Since 2005, however, both of these cities (as well as others across the United States) have developed transit-assisted mass evacuation plans at various levels of detail. Because these plans are relatively recent and do not have a history of experience on which to base their performance, it is difficult to know how well, or even if, they will work. This article describes one of the first attempts to systematically model and simulate transit-based evacuation strategies. In it, the development of and the results gained from an application of the TRansportation ANalysis and SIMulation System (TRANSIMS) agent-based transportation simulation system to model assisted evacuation plans of New Orleans are described. In the research, average travel time and total evacuation time were used to compare the results of a range of conditions over a two-day evacuation period, including two alternative transit evacuation routing plans and four alternative network loading scenarios. Among the general findings of the research was that the most effective scenarios of transit-based evacuation were those that were carried out during time periods during which the auto-based evacuation was in its “lull” (nonpeak/overnight) periods. These conditions resulted in up to a 10% reduction in overall travel time and up to 45% reduction in the total evacuation time when compared to peak evacuation conditions. It was also found that routing buses to alternate arterial routes reduced the overall travel time by up to 52% and the total evacuation time by up to 14%.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".