Integrating Equity Objectives in a Road Network Design Model
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The traditional approach to the road network design problem focuses on the optimization of network efficiency under a given budget. Generally, this leads to the improvement of roads next to the largest population centers, where travel demand is higher. Such results are not consistent with sustainable development principles, since the dissimilarities between the welfare of large and small centers will tend to increase. Nevertheless, equity issues were rarely taken into account in road network design. Moreover, all existing studies rely on a single equity measure. In this paper equity concerns in transportation planning are reviewed briefly, and a comparison of alternative equity measures is presented. Three equity measures were selected and incorporated into an accessibility-maximization road network design model. The three equity measures reflect different perspectives on equity: accessibility to low-accessibility centers, the dispersion of accessibility values across all centers (Gini coefficient), and the dispersion of accessibility values across all centers and across centers in the same region (Theil index). The implications of adopting each of these equity measures are illustrated through application of the optimization model to three random networks.
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.
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 | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 it