MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163826616 · doi:10.1287/trsc.1030.0045

Existence, Uniqueness, and Trip Cost Function Properties of User Equilibrium in the Bottleneck Model with Multiple User Classes

2004· article· en· W2163826616 on OpenAlexaff
Robin Lindsey

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBottleneckUniquenessScheduleTravel timeFunction (biology)Unit (ring theory)Computer scienceMathematical optimizationUnit of timeTotal costRetardAverage costOperations researchMathematicsTransport engineeringEconomicsEngineeringMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Under relatively general assumptions a unique deterministic departure-time user equilibrium with a finite departure rate exists in the bottleneck model with drivers who differ in their unit costs of travel time, preferred times of arrival, and schedule delay cost functions. Existence requires that schedule delay cost functions be upper semicontinuous with respect to arrival time, and that schedule delay costs decline at a rate smaller than the unit cost of travel time. Uniqueness requires, more restrictively, that schedule delay cost functions be continuous. Several properties of equilibrium trip cost functions are derived for n groups of users with Ni in group i. The trip cost of a user in group i is a nondecreasing function of each Nj, but typically rises more quickly with respect to Ni than Nj, j≠i. Thus, users experience lower trip costs when they travel with users unlike themselves than with an equal number of users like themselves.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations235
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation ScienceSame topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207