MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021390443 · doi:10.3141/2143-02

Identifying Causes of Performance Issues in Bus Schedule Adherence with Automatic Vehicle Location and Passenger Count Data

2010· article· en· W2021390443 on OpenAlex
Michael Mandelzys, Bruce Hellinga

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic Prediction and Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceScheduleAutomatic vehicle locationVisualizationTransport engineeringData miningEngineeringTelecommunicationsOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automatic vehicle location (AVL) and automatic passenger counting (APC) systems can provide rich archived databases for analysis. Previous work has focused on using AVL–APC data to evaluate system performance using various quantitative performance measures and data visualization methods. Given the large volume of data, there is a benefit to automating the creation of performance measures and data visualizations and “pushing” interesting information to users, rather than requiring users to create the performance measures and figures and sift through them on their own. This paper presents a methodology for identifying bus stops that are not meeting performance standards for schedule adherence and the factors that cause inadequate performance. The methodology is designed to be automated and therefore can be applied efficiently to AVL–APC data for an entire transit network. Use of this proposed method will enable transit agencies to identify service quality issues and their root causes more efficiently.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.287 · 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