MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145604114 · doi:10.1139/l06-127

Genetically-optimized origin-destination estimation (GOODE) model: application to regional commodity movements in Ontario

2007· article· en· W2145604114 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Omar Al-Battaineh, Isam Kaysi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceEstimationCommodityMatrix (chemical analysis)Operations researchMathematicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem of origin-destination (O-D) matrix estimation has attracted significant research attention in the past few decades. This paper proposes a novel approach to estimate a regional freight O-D matrix using different data sources. The genetically optimized origin-destination estimation (GOODE) model takes advantage of the genetic algorithm's (GA) global search procedure to find the O-D matrix that is associated with the minimum deviation between estimated and observed data values. The GOODE-commodity model, an extension of the GOODE model, estimates the freight O-D matrix by interfacing GOODE with a trip generation model based on input-output data. The GOODE model and its extension bring together national input-output data, truck survey data, a global searching method, and a GIS platform for data manipulation. This paper presents the GOODE model structure, a prototypical numerical example, a benchmarking exercise with an existing O-D estimation model, and a real-world application of the GOODE-commodity model for a case study of commodity movements in Ontario. Avenues for future research are also addressed.Key words: origin-destination (O-D) matrix estimation, truck transportation modelling, input-output, Ontario, genetic algorithm.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.943

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207