Multidimensional Indicator Analysis for Transport Policy Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The need for forecasting the direct and indirect effects of land use and transport policies on society, the environment, and the local economy has led to the development of integrated land use and transport (LUTI) models. The land use and transport policy evaluation is based on point estimators of economic sustainability indicators, usually computed at an aggregate level (e.g., social welfare) despite the fact that the models and simulation are based on the individual. A methodology based on the strength of microsimulation in three dimensions (space, time, and agents) is presented. By multiple simulation runs of the LUTI model UrbanSim, the distributions of inequality and accessibility indicators in space and time were generated, and their variance was measured. The methodology was first applied in a base case scenario (in which the then current trend existed) of the Limmattal region including Zurich, Switzerland, and then on a public transport investment scenario. The results of the two scenarios were then compared on the basis of actual distributions rather than the mean point values of the indicators. The proposed methodology differed from the point-based policy evaluation frameworks in terms of details and insightfulness that could better support the process of informed decision making.
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 | 0.016 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".