MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025537608 · doi:10.3141/2429-13

Application of Travel Activity Scheduler for Household Agents in a Chinese City

2014· article· en· W2025537608 on OpenAlexaff
Yiling Deng, Eric J. Miller, James A. Vaughan

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReplicateScheduling (production processes)Duration (music)Travel timeComputer scienceTravel behaviorSimulationTransport engineeringOperations researchStatisticsEconometricsEngineeringOperations managementMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The travel activity scheduler for household agents (TASHA) is an operational rule-based model that generates activity schedules and travel patterns for a 24-h typical weekday for all persons in a household. This paper reports the application and validation of the model in Changzhou, China. The data cleaning procedure of the traditional household survey and the verification results of the rules used in the TASHA are presented. After the results of the activity generation and scheduling models were analyzed, an iterative approach was applied to inflating the observed activity rates to calibrate the results. The model was shown to replicate observed activity frequency, tour frequency, and trip start time fairly accurately at the regional level. The activity duration of the model was underestimated by 13.1%, but this underestimate did not add much bias to the shape of the duration distribution by start time. The final model results show that the TASHA is an attractive alternative to conventional modeling systems currently used in Changzhou.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.412
Threshold uncertainty score0.819

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207