Analyzing Passenger Incidence Behavior in Heterogeneous Transit Services Using Smartcard Data and Schedule-Based Assignment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Passenger incidence (station arrival) behavior has been studied primarily to understand how changes to a transit service will affect passenger waiting times. The impact of one intervention (e.g., increasing frequency) could be overestimated when compared with another (e.g., improving reliability), depending on the assumption of incidence behavior. Understanding passenger incidence allows management decisions to be based on realistic behavioral assumptions. Earlier studies on passenger incidence chose their data samples from stations with a single service pattern such that the linking of passengers to services was straightforward. This choice of data samples simplifies the analysis but heavily limits the stations that can be studied. In any moderately complex network, many stations may have more than one service pattern. This limitation prevents the method from being systematically applied to the whole network and constrains its use in practice. This paper considers incidence behavior in stations with heterogeneous services and proposes a method for estimating incidence headway and waiting time by integrating disaggregate smartcard data with published timetables using schedule-based assignment. This method is applied to stations in the entire London Overground to demonstrate its practicality; incidence behavior varies across the network and across times of day and reflects headways and reliability. Incidence is much less timetable-dependent on the North London Line than on the other lines because of shorter headways and poorer reliability. Where incidence is timetable-dependent, passengers reduce their mean scheduled waiting time by more than 3 min compared with random incidence.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".