Review of Optimal Transit Subsidies: Comparison between Models
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Establishing appropriate subsidies for transit systems is essential to determine levels of investment and operations budgets for such systems. Transit subsidies vary significantly among cities around the world, generally being lowest in Asia and highest in Australia and North America. The potential economic rationale for subsidizing urban transit results from increasing returns to scale, positive externalities, and second-best pricing. In spite of low cross-elasticities of demand among modes, the second-best pricing argument is perhaps the strongest, given the absence of congestion pricing in most cities. Three models for calculating optimal subsidies are compared in terms of their mathematical form, assumptions, and input and output variables. Applying any of the models requires demand modeling and careful definition of costs. One model is identified as being the most practical, another is useful for research, and the third is perhaps better for explaining principles.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it