MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794902319 · doi:10.29007/ptck

Topology Vulnerability Analysis of several Urban Metro Networks

2018· paratext· en· W2794902319 on OpenAlexaff
Lulu Guo, Guofeng Su

Bibliographic record

VenueEasyChair preprint · 2018
Typeparatext
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsPublic Safety Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBetweenness centralityClustering coefficientVulnerability (computing)Node (physics)Computer scienceMetropolitan areaComplex networkAverage path lengthTransport engineeringComputer securityComputer networkGeographyCluster analysisShortest path problemEngineeringMathematicsCentralityStatisticsGraphArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In modern cities, urban metro systems gradually become an important transportation tool. The failure of metro may influence citizens’ travel and cause economic losses. It is a focal problem that assessing the vulnerability of metro networks at home and abroad. Several metro networks are modeled by a modified Space L, in which metro interchange and travel time are involved. The properties of these metro networks are calculated at first, showing that at the same size, the average degree is larger, the network efficiency is better. Then the vulnerabilities of metro networks under random attack and three malicious attacks are studied and discussed. It is discovered that the metro networks are vulnerable to the biggest travel-time-efficiency node-based attack(EA) and the highest betweenness node-based attack(BA), and robust against random attack. The four attacks harm Tokyo metro network least, which has a big size, the max average degree and clustering coefficient of the seven metro networks. Finally, the top ten stations in order under EA and BA are respectively listed as a case study of Shanghai metro.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEasyChair preprintSame topicComplex Network Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207