MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996846055 · doi:10.3141/2105-01

Driver-Assisted Bus Interview

2009· article· en· W1996846055 on OpenAlexafffund
Ka Kee Alfred Chu, Robert Chapleau, Martin Trépanier

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Mobility and Location-Based Analysis
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsData collectionComputer scienceSurvey data collectionPublic transportTransport engineeringBus rapid transitData qualityTransit (satellite)Service (business)Travel surveySmart cardSurvey methodologyTravel behaviorData scienceEngineeringComputer securityBusinessMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new concept in transit travel surveys, called the driver-assisted bus interview, is proposed. The survey uses data that are passively gathered by smart card automatic fare collection systems on public transit. Its superiority lies in the resolution of the data as well as the continuous geographic and temporal coverage of the network and cardholders. The paper first discusses the quality of survey data. It then describes a totally disaggregate object-oriented approach as a method to understand, validate, correct, and enrich the data. The study uses one month of archived smart card boarding data from a medium-size transit agency. The data go through a validation and correction process that makes use of planned service and cardholders’ historic travel pattern. Trip data not collected by the survey are obtained through enrichment techniques. The anchor points of a cardholder can be inferred from the derived employment status, multiday travel pattern, and a trip-generator database. The procedure that infers trip destination and trip purpose for the student subgroup is explained. Advanced analysis and visualization techniques demonstrate the versatility of the data, which can be scrutinized as a travel demand survey, a special trip generator survey, a resource allocation and consumption survey, and a multiday survey.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations26
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicHuman Mobility and Location-Based AnalysisFrench-language works237,207