MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043145318 · doi:10.1002/atr.5670370304

Network equilibrium for congested multi‐mode networks with elastic demand

2003· article· en· W2043145318 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Z. X. Wu, William H. K. Lam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHong Kong Polytechnic University
KeywordsVariational inequalityPrice elasticity of demandConstraint (computer-aided design)Mode (computer interface)Mathematical optimizationComputer scienceMode choiceTransit (satellite)LogitPublic transportMathematicsEconomicsTransport engineeringEngineeringMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper proposes an elastic demand network equilibrium model for networks with transit and walking modes. In Hong Kong, the multi‐mode transit system services over 90% of the total journeys and the demand on it is continuously increasing. Transit and walking modes are related to each other as transit passengers have to walk to and from transit stops. In this paper, the multi‐mode elastic‐demand network equilibrium problem is formulated as a variational inequality problem where the combined mode and route choices are modeled in a hierarchical logit structures and the total travel demand for each origin‐destination pair is explicitly given by an elastic demand function. In addition, the capacity constraint for transit vehicles and the effects of bi‐directional flows on walkways are considered in the proposed model. All these congestion effects are taken into account for modeling the travel choices. A solution algorithm is developed to solve the multi‐mode elastic‐demand network equilibrium model. It is based on a Block Gauss‐Seidel decomposition approach coupled with the method of successive averages. A numerical example is used to illustrate the application of the proposed model and solution algorithm.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 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

Citations21
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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