Bibliographic record
Abstract
A decision analytic model for the selection of mass transit technology is suggested. The model considers a transit corridor with known right of way category and rules of operation. The system with technology under evaluation satisfies the users’, operators’ and community requirements roughly equally and has identical level of comfort, convenience and other nonquantifiable attributes of performance measures. Cost attributes comprise of access/egress cost, riding time cost, waiting time cost in users’ side, transit operating cost, station cost, line cost and fleet cost in the operators’ side, and the measurable cost of air pollution on the community's cost side. Given the subjective probabilities of the chance event influencing the decision and possible outcomes of the event, technology, which offers the maximum expected utility, is established. This utility indicator together with other unmodellable factors can form the basis for decision making on technology selection. The problem is extended to include multiple chance events and outcomes of more definitive experiments with updated probabilities. It is shown that transit technology similar to Light Rail Transit could be considered viable in developing countries only when the value of travel time is considerably higher than what it is now.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".