MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2558004593 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v9n6p103

Traffic Congestion in Dar es Salaam: Implications for Workers’ Productivity

2016· article· en· W2558004593 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hosea Mpogole, Samira Msangi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDar es salaamTraffic congestionTanzaniaProductivityTransport engineeringWork (physics)BusinessGeographyOperations managementEconomicsEconomic growthEngineeringEnvironmental planning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inadequately planned transport systems result to traffic congestion, a challenge that has for long been a thorn in Dar es Salaam, the city most affected in Tanzania. Although traffic congestion has been a major concern in Dar es Salaam, marked reluctance has been noticed in taking measures towards a lasting solution thus, it is of diminutive surprise that limited studies and documentations on the same are in existence. Therefore, this study assesses traffic congestion in Dar es Salaam and particularly its implications for workers’ productivity. Travel time and productivity indexes were established from a sample of 96 workers who used public transport along Morogoro and Mandela Roads. Travel time index (TTI) is the ratio of the average travel time during peak period to the travel time during off-peak period. Findings reveal that TTI was 2.19. Workers spent about 2 times of the average commuting time to work and 3 times of the same commuting from work to their various residences. About 2.5 hours were lost on traffic jam per day and that people worked 1.4 times less than the required time due to traffic congestion. It was further established that in 10 working days, almost 3 days were lost to traffic congestion. Since there are ongoing efforts to improve the transport system through the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project, it remains to be seen as to what extent traffic congestion will be reduced. In either case, this study provides a benchmark for comparisons.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable DevelopmentSame topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207