MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770817875 · doi:10.1155/2017/4941535

A Simplified Network Model for Travel Time Reliability Analysis in a Road Network

2017· article· en· W2770817875 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kenetsu Uchida, Teppei Kato

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariance (accounting)Path (computing)Reliability (semiconductor)Travel timeCovarianceComputer scienceNetwork modelFlow networkSimulationMathematicsMathematical optimizationStatisticsEngineeringTransport engineeringEconomicsData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a simplified network model which analyzes travel time reliability in a road network. A risk-averse driver is assumed in the simplified model. The risk-averse driver chooses a path by taking into account both a path travel time variance and a mean path travel time. The uncertainty addressed in this model is that of traffic flows (i.e., stochastic demand flows). In the simplified network model, the path travel time variance is not calculated by considering all travel time covariance between two links in the network. The path travel time variance is calculated by considering all travel time covariance between two adjacent links in the network. Numerical experiments are carried out to illustrate the applicability and validity of the proposed model. The experiments introduce the path choice behavior of a risk-neutral driver and several types of risk-averse drivers. It is shown that the mean link flows calculated by introducing the risk-neutral driver differ as a whole from those calculated by introducing several types of risk-averse drivers. It is also shown that the mean link flows calculated by the simplified network model are almost the same as the flows calculated by using the exact path travel time variance.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.294 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207