MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2256163264

Performance Metrics and Analysis of Transit Network Resilience in Toronto

2016· article· en· W2256163264 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David King, Amer Shalaby

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Board 95th Annual MeetingTransportation Research Board · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResilience (materials science)Public transportTransport engineeringNetwork analysisTransit (satellite)Work (physics)Computer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Slow expansion and inadequate upgrades of the transit network in Toronto, combined with unprecedented levels of demand, have created a daily commute for transit users which is plagued by delays and disruptions. This paper aims at examining and quantifying the resilience of the public transit network in Toronto to operational disruptions. It also attempts to identify critical points within the network, as well as the spatial impact of service disruptions. The study of resilience is a relatively new research topic, with a limited breadth of research conducted to date, especially when one considers the resilience of a public transit network. This paper intends to fill this research gap by proposing a new framework for resilience measurement and analysis. The approach adopted in this work is a unique combination of quantitative methods founded in Graph Theory and demand-elastic methods of transportation network analysis using EMME4. The research findings revealed the critical stations in Toronto’s subway network, which if disrupted, would create major negative impacts on passenger trip times. The underlying reasons for their inherent critical nature is discussed and analyzed. In addition, this work was able to spatially quantify transit resilience by identifying both low-risk and at-risk areas within Toronto.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.306 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Board 95th Annual MeetingTransportation Research BoardSame topicInfrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207