MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013037378 · doi:10.5038/2375-0901.12.1.5

Calculation of Transit Performance Measures Using Smartcard Data

2009· article· en· W2013037378 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Public Transportation · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Mobility and Location-Based Analysis
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsSmart cardTransit (satellite)RevenuePublic transportComputer scienceService (business)Data collectionTransport engineeringKilometerReal-time computingEngineeringComputer securityStatisticsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smartcard automated fare collection systems (SCAFC) for transit have been considered primarily for their administrative function of controlling access to the service and for revenue management. However, it is likely that data from these systems also can be used to describe both transport supply and demand. This article illustrates the use of smartcard data to estimate various transit performance measures. Combined with well-established evaluation processes, such measures can help operators monitor their networks in greater detail. The performance of the network supply (vehicle-kilometers, vehicle-hours, commercial speed, etc.) and the statistics on passenger service (passenger-kilometers, passenger-hours, average trip length, etc.) can be calculated from these datasets for any spatial or temporal level of resolution, including route and bus stop levels.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.820
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.148
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.207 · 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