UNDERSTANDING BIKE SHARE CYCLIST ROUTE CHOICE BEHAVIOR
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines the existence of a dominant route between a hub pair and factors that influence bike share cyclists route choices. This research collects 132,396 hub to-hub global positioning system (GPS) trajectories over a 12-month period between April 1, 2015 and March 31, 2016 from 750 bicycles provided by a bike share program (BSP) called SoBi (Social Bicycles) Hamilton. Then, a GIS-based map-matching toolkit is used to convert GPS points to map-matched trips and generate a series of route attributes. In order to create choice sets, unique routes between the same hub pair are extracted from all corresponding repeated trips using a link signature tool. The results from t statistics and Path-size logit models indicate that bike share cyclists are willing to detour for some positive features, such as bicycle facilities and low traffic volumes, but they also try to avoid too circuitous routes, turns, and steep slopes over 4% though detouring may come with a slight increase in turns. This research not only helps us understand BSP cyclist route preferences but also presents a GIS-based approach to determine potential road segments for additional bike facilities on the basis of such preferences.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it