MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017928262 · doi:10.5038/2375-0901.10.3.4

A New Performance Index for Evaluating Transit Quality of Service

2007· article· en· W2017928262 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 · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)University of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNew York Community Trust
KeywordsService qualityService (business)Index (typography)Measure (data warehouse)Transport engineeringLevel of serviceTransit (satellite)Quality (philosophy)Computer scienceService levelQuality of serviceSensitivity (control systems)Operations researchReliability engineeringPublic transportStatisticsData miningBusinessEngineeringMathematicsTelecommunicationsMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article proposes a new performance index called Transit Service Indicator (TSI), which could be used as a comprehensive measure for quantifying the quality of service of a transit system. TSI integrates multiple performance measures (e.g., service frequency, hours of service, route coverage, and travel time components) within a systematic framework. It takes into account spatial and temporal variations in travel demand, recognizing that quality of service is a result of interaction between supply and demand. A case study is conducted to examine the sensitivity of the proposed TSI to various system design and condition variables and parameters.

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)0.005
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 score0.436
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.288 · 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