MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028417331 · doi:10.3141/2350-13

Users’ Evaluation of Rail Systems in Mass Events

2013· article· en· W2028417331 on OpenAlexaff
Isam Kaysi, Baha Alshalalfah, Amer Shalaby, Arwa Sayegh, M. Sayour, Adnan Gutub

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMilestonePilgrimageHajjNinthTransport engineeringPathfinderLine (geometry)Quality (philosophy)IslamGeographyBusinessEngineeringComputer scienceArchaeologyLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Each year during the ninth month of the Muslim lunar calendar, more than 2 million Muslim pilgrims from around the world travel to the Holy City of Mecca in Saudi Arabia for Hajj, an annual religious pilgrimage. A significant milestone in the effort to improve the existing transport system in the Holy City was the introduction of the Southern Masha'er Rail Line during the 2010 pilgrimage season. In the first year of operation, the line operated at only 30% of its full capacity before full implementation in the following year, when the line operated at full capacity of 72,000 passengers per hour. Results are presented of a users’ survey that aimed to assess the performance of the rail line from the perspective of its users. The analysis revealed that rail users faced longer access, waiting, and egress times compared with regular rail operations standards. However, survey results showed that the majority of pilgrims found these times to be tolerable. Moreover, the majority of users found the rail line and its stations to be of excellent quality and gave positive recommendations for using the rail line in the future. The analysis also produced some interesting observations that may be of relevance to rail operation in similar crowded events. Those observations are highlighted.

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 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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.923

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations24
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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