MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2064628400 · doi:10.1061/41177(415)145

Spatial Analysis of Individual Activity Locations and Concentration Levels in Calgary

2011· article· en· W2064628400 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rong Shan, Ming Zhong, Li Li

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Computer scienceTransport engineeringSet (abstract data type)Land useSpace (punctuation)Travel timeTravel behaviorGeographyCivil engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Personal travel information available from household surveys helps urban transportation planners to better capture the real world situation at a much-detailed level. Individuals have a set of periodic activities and the resources that satisfy these activities are distributed across space and time. Individuals must distribute their limited time among these activities, and transportation is used to trade time for space changing. In this study, ArcGIS is used to analyze the time and location choices of several Calgarian activities, such as work, home, education and others. In particular, GIS is used to show activity locations and concentration levels over different time of the day, and visualize individual trip chains. Study results clearly show that the location choices of the work, home, and education are consistent with underlying land use patterns of desired zones. And time of the day analysis also indicates that work-shift results in significant changes in activity concentrations over different land use zones due to their own natures. Mapping of individual trip chains also provides evidences that daily travel patterns are much more complicated than those having been modeled in the traditional aggregated models.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.297
Threshold uncertainty score0.598

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUrban Transport and Accessibility→French-language works237,207→