MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031559113 · doi:10.1002/atr.155

On the allocation of new lines in a competitive transit network with uncertain demand and scale economies

2011· article· en· W2031559113 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zhichun Li, William H. K. Lam, S.C. Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomies of scaleBiddingTransit (satellite)Computer scienceOperator (biology)Profit (economics)Probabilistic logicOperations researchEconomicsPublic transportResource allocationMicroeconomicsTransport engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper proposes a new model for investigating the allocation of new lines in a competitive transit network in which transit operations are subject to demand uncertainty and scale economies. Scale economies imply that the operating cost of each operator per unit of transit line decreases with the number of lines operated. The proposed model explicitly considers the interactions among three types of players: transit authority, transit operators, and transit passengers. The transit authority aims to maximize the total social welfare for a given confidence level (or probabilistic guarantee) by optimizing the allocation of new lines to bidding operators. For a given allocation scheme, each of the operators determines the associated frequencies and fares to maximize its own profit at a certain confidence level while accounting for the responses of transit passengers to their strategies. The proposed line allocation model is formulated as a robust 0–1 integer programming problem that can be solved by an implicit enumeration algorithm. A numerical example is presented to illustrate the effects on the transit system of the allocation of new lines, the scale economies, the level of variation in passenger demand, and the risk attitude of transit operators toward uncertainty. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.000
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 score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.851

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.234 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207