MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106584098

Modeling Household Weekend Activity Durations in Calgary

2005· article· en· W2106584098 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ming Zhong, John Douglas Hunt

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTravel behaviorPersonal incomeSample (material)Travel surveyScale (ratio)EconometricsComputer scienceTransport engineeringGeographyEconomicsEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes how a large-scale survey for household weekend activity and related travel was completed recently in the City of Calgary. The data include detailed information of travelers and activity, such as personal type (e.g., adult worker or senior), employment status (fulltime or part-time), annual income, gender, activity type (e.g., shopping or sociality), activity duration, and starting & ending time of each activity. A micro-simulation based choice behavior model has been used in the previous city planning tasks. The model is capable of simulating complete travel behavior of individuals by considering travel purpose, travel mode, itinerary, activity durations, and even group influences. Previously, the simulation was done using a Monte Carlo process with sampling distributions based on weighted sample of observed durations. Simulations based on such “static” distributions, however, can not be used to analyze the influences of various policies (e.g., changes in transit fare) and travel conditions (congestion or easier accessibility) to household activities in a dynamic environment. This study is an initiative for modeling the relationship between activity durations and various influencing factors (e.g., personal type, employment status, and income level, etc.). Especially, hazard and survival functions are specified for each type of activity and individual personal type. The results show a high degree of fit and it is believed that these models would be useful for travel-related policy analysis in the future modeling framework.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207