Application of Artificial Neural Network Models to Activity Scheduling Time Horizon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine-learning techniques are increasingly being applied in the areas of exploratory data analysis, prediction, and classification. At the same time that analytical techniques are expanding, new conceptual approaches to the modeling of travel are emerging in an effort to improve travel demand forecasting and better assess the impacts of emerging transportation policy. In particular, the shift toward activity-based travel analysis has led to the development of activity scheduling models. One of the key features of emerging models of this type is the attempt to simulate the order in which activities are added during a continuous process of schedule construction. In practice, a fixed order by activity type is often assumed; for example, work activities are planned first, followed by the planning of more discretionary activity types. By using observed data on the scheduling process from a small sample of households from Quebec City, Quebec, Canada, a neural network model that classifies activities according to the order in which they were planned, the planning time horizon (preplanned, planned, or impulsive), was developed. A variety of explanatory variables were used in the model related to individual-, household-, and activity-based characteristics such as spatial and temporal fixities. The model developed exhibited a relatively high degree of prediction with the test data, especially for the preplanned and impulsive categories of the planning time horizon. These results suggest that machine-learning algorithms could be used to predict the order in which activities are selected in emerging activity scheduling process models, thereby avoiding static assumptions related purely to activity type.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".