MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W267343212

Population Synthesis for Microsimulating Urban Residential Mobility

2010· article· en· W267343212 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Justin Ryan, Hanna Maoh, Pavlos Kanaroglou

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Board 89th Annual MeetingTransportation Research Board · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrosimulationPython (programming language)PopulationComputer scienceOperations researchTransport engineeringEconometricsEconomicsEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, transportation researchers have turned to microsimulation models in order to capture and forecast patterns of land use and transport demand across urban networks. Although they bring with them many advantages, microsimulation models require rich micro-data sets as input. In response to this demand, and due to the difficulty of obtaining disaggregate data in practice, methods of population synthesis are employed, which create disaggregate population lists based on publicly available attribute tabulations and micro-samples. A further challenge arises when microsimulation models require that hierarchical relationships exist between different populations in a given study area. For instance, in microsimulation models of residential mobility a ‘comprehensive’ population may be required, where individuals belong to households, which in turn belong to dwellings located in space. It is to such a situation that the authors focus their efforts in this paper, based on the requirements of a specific microsimulation model of residential mobility. Following a brief discussion of the problem in general terms, the authors devise and implement an algorithm in order to create linkages between populations of individuals and households for the City of Hamilton, Ontario. For this task, software is developed in the Python language, using a generic approach that allows for its use in other similar situations. Finally, the authors report on some validation results of the linked ‘comprehensive’ population.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.362 · 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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Board 89th Annual MeetingTransportation Research BoardSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207