Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Seating or standing make distinct on‐board states to a transit rider, yielding distinct discomfort costs, with potential influence on the passenger route choice onto the transit network. The paper provides a transit assignment model that captures the seating capacity and its occupancy along any transit route. The main assumptions pertain to: the seat capacity by service route, selfish user behaviour, a seat allocation process with priority rules among the riders, according to their prior state either on‐board or at boarding. To each transit leg from access to egress station is associated a set of ‘service modes’, among which the riders are assigned in a probabilistic way, conditionally on their priority status and the ratio between the available capacity and the flow of them. Thus the leg cost is a random variable, with mean value to be included in the trip disutility. Computationally efficient algorithms are provided for, respectively, loading the leg flows and evaluating the leg costs along a transit line. At the network level, a hyperpath formulation is provided for supply‐demand equilibrium, together with a property of existence and an method of successive averages equilibration algorithm. It is shown that multiple equilibria may arise. 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".