MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073673725 · doi:10.3844/ajeassp.2011.363.371

Application of Multiple Imputations to Freight Transportation Survey Data: A Case Study of Commodity Flow Survey

2011· article· en· W2073673725 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rongviriyapanich

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKing Mongkut's University of Technology North Bangkok
KeywordsSurvey data collectionCommodityData qualityScope (computer science)Transport engineeringQuarter (Canadian coin)Survey methodologyQuality (philosophy)BusinessComputer scienceStatisticsEngineeringMarketingMathematicsGeographyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Problem statement: Freight transportation data was indispensable input to transportation planning. In Thailand, efforts had been put to collect freight movement data by conducting road side survey and commodity flow survey. The results of these surveys did not produce consistent volume of shipment due to limited sampling coverage and non-response. Nevertheless, freight distribution patterns, which were derived from these surveys, were favorably consistent with each other. Approach: The objective of this study was propose an approach to improving quality of the commodity flow survey data in terms of total shipment weight. Our scope of study was limited to consumer goods and food stuffs. Multiple imputations were performed to correct non-response. The shipment weight was again adjusted by taking into account of the probability of no shipment in a particular quarter. Results: Comparison between the adjusted weight and road side survey data showed that the discrepancies in total weight of significantly reduced. Conclusion: Total shipment weights of the CFS after the adjustments are compares to those of road side survey. Plausible result is obtained for the case of consumer goods, while that of food stuffs is still notably different.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.382
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Engineering and Applied SciencesSame topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207