MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2099952271 · doi:10.1002/atr.159

An assessment of models to estimate pedestrian demand based on the level of activity

2011· article· en· W2099952271 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Srinivas S. Pulugurtha, Sudha R. Repaka

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPedestrianRegression analysisTransport engineeringVariablesComputer sciencePredictive modellingStatisticsEnvironmental scienceEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY This paper presents the development and assessment of models to estimate pedestrian demand based on the level of pedestrian activity (high and low). As activity varies by the time of the day, temporal variations were evaluated by considering different time periods. Data collected at 128 low and 48 high pedestrian activity signalized intersections (a total of 176 signalized intersections) in the City of Charlotte, North Carolina were used to develop and assess the models using stepwise regression analysis through backward elimination of independent variables (includes demographic, land use, and network characteristics). The use of different buffer widths (proximal area) to extract these characteristics was also evaluated. Results, in general, show that pedestrian demand varied by the level of activity, explanatory variables extracted by buffer width, and time of the day. The estimates from the models could be used in transportation planning (identify required pedestrian facilities, resource allocation), safety, and operational analyses. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced Transportation→Same topicUrban Transport and Accessibility→French-language works237,207→