MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2464637415 · doi:10.1061/9780784479926.051

Making Transit Reliability Benefits Accessible to Engineers

2016· article· en· W2464637415 on OpenAlexaff
John C. Parker, Ben Rommelaere

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Transit (satellite)Computer scienceReliability engineeringTransport engineeringRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringPublic transportBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advances in measuring the intangible costs and benefits of transportation are being made but economic cost-benefit models used to analyze transportation infrastructure projects have not kept up. There are new benefit categories that existing transportation cost-benefit models do not include. One example is the benefit of travel time reliability. This paper summarizes the results of 30 studies of reliability and synthesizes them into a reliability ratio that can be used in transit cost-benefit analysis. By interpreting and standardizing reliability research the paper shows how cutting edge transportation research can be made available to engineering and planning professionals in their planning and design decisions. The value of reliability is implemented in a cost-benefit and risk analysis model and is freely available as a spreadsheet from the authors.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUrban Transport and Accessibility→French-language works237,207→