MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2267992617 · doi:10.7307/ptt.v27i6.1734

SOLVING TRAFFIC CONGESTION FROM THE DEMAND SIDE

2015· article· en· W2267992617 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePROMET - Traffic&Transportation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsTransport Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemand managementTraffic congestionSingapore Area Licensing SchemeDemand sideCongestion pricingPublic transportTransport engineeringRoad pricingOn demandOperations researchComputer scienceBusinessEconomicsEngineeringEnvironmental economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is nowadays widely accepted that solving traffic congestion from the demand side is more important and more feasible than offering more capacity or facilities for transportation. Following a brief overview of evolution of the concept of Travel Demand Management (TDM), there is a discussion on the TDM foundations that include demand-side strategies, traveler choice and application settings and the new dimensions that ATDM (Active forms of Transportation and Demand Management) bring to TDM, i.e. active management and integrative management. Subsequently, the authors provide a short review of the state-of-the-art TDM focusing on relevant literature published since 2000. Next, we highlight five TDM topics that are currently hot: traffic congestion pricing, public transit and bicycles, travel behavior, travel plans and methodology. The paper closes with some concluding remarks.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score0.838

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.246 · 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