An Association Rule Based Method to Integrate Metro-Public Bicycle Smart Card Data for Trip Chain Analysis
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
Smart card data provide valuable insights and massive samples for enhancing the understanding of transfer behavior between metro and public bicycle. However, smart cards for metro and public bicycle are often issued and managed by independent companies and this results in the same commuter having different identity tags in the metro and public bicycle smart card systems. The primary objective of this study is to develop a data fusion methodology for matching metro and public bicycle smart cards for the same commuter using historical smart card data. A novel method with association rules to match the data derived from the two systems is proposed and validation was performed. The results showed that our proposed method successfully matched 573 pairs of smart cards with an accuracy of 100%. We also validated the association rules method through visualization of individual metro and public bicycle trips. Based on the matched cards, interesting findings of metro-bicycle transfer have been derived, including the spatial pattern of the public bicycle as first/last mile solution as well as the duration of a metro trip chain.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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