Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper addresses the impacts of different scheduling alternatives for a branching transit route. It examines different schedule alternatives that might be used to optimize the route performance in terms of the passenger traveling time distributed among branch passengers and trunk‐line passengers. The schedule alternatives considered include transit vehicle allocation to different branches, offset shifting across vehicles on different branches, and vehicle holding (slack time) in the transit vehicle schedule. With these variables, several vehicle schedules are devised and examined based on a wide variety of possible passenger boarding scenarios using deterministic service models. Test outcomes provide general conclusions about the performance of the strategies. Vehicle assignment leading to even headways among branches is generally preferred for the case of low passenger demand. However, when passenger demand is high, or the differences between the passenger demands on branches are significant, unequal vehicle assignment will be helpful to improve the overall route performance. Holding, as a proactive strategy in scheduling, has the potential to be embedded into the schedule as a type of slack time, but needs further evidence and study to determine the full set of conditions where it may be beneficial. Offset shifting does not show sufficient evidence to be an efficient strategy to improve route performance in the case of low or high passenger demand.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".