Road traffic congestion measurement considering impacts on travelers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article intends to find a method to quantify traffic congestion’s impacts on travelers to help transportation planners and policy decision makers well understand congestion situations. Three new congestion indicators, including transportation environment satisfaction (TES), travel time satisfaction (TTS), and traffic congestion frequency and feeling (TCFF), are defined to estimate urban traffic congestion based on travelers’ feelings. Data of travelers’ attitude about congestion and trip information were collected from a survey in Shanghai, China. Based on the survey data, we estimated the value of the three indicators. Then, the principal components analysis was used to derive a small number of linear combinations of a set of variables to estimate the whole congestion status. A linear regression model was used to find out the significant variables which impact respondents’ feelings. Two ordered logit models were used to select significant variables of TES and TTS. Attitudinal factor variables were also used in these models. The results show that attitudinal factor variables and cluster category variables are as important as sociodemographic variables in the models. Using the three congestion indicators, the government can collect travelers’ feeling about traffic congestion and estimate the transportation policy that might be applied to cope with traffic congestion.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".