MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003428518 · doi:10.5038/2375-0901.14.3.4

The Effects of Articulated Buses on Dwell and Running Times

2011· article· en· W2003428518 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Public Transportation · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDwell timeAccelerationAutomotive engineeringPassenger informationTransit (satellite)Transport engineeringMeasure (data warehouse)SimulationComputer scienceRunning timeReal-time computingEngineeringPublic transport

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Articulated buses are being operated more frequently on popular bus routes, as they can handle higher passenger loads and increase rider comfort. Dwell and running times associated with articulated buses are expected to be different from regular low-floor buses. We use archived bus operation and passenger information from three heavily-used bus routes operated by the Société de Transport de Montréal, Canada, to measure these differences. Operation of articulated buses yielded to savings in dwell time, especially with high levels of passenger activity and the use of the third door in alighting. These savings were not reflected in running time, due to increases in the time associated with acceleration, deceleration, and merging with traffic. This study gives transit planners and operators important information on the differences in operating environments between regular and articulated buses.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.472
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.232 · 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