Automated Validation and Interpolation of Long-Duration Bicycle Counting Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bicycle flow data is crucial for transportation agencies to evaluate and improve cycling infrastructure. Average annual daily bicyclists (AADB) is commonly used in research and practice as a metric for cycling studies such as ridership analysis, infrastructure planning, and injury risk. AADB is estimated by averaging the daily cyclist totals measured throughout the year using a long-term automated bicycle counter, or by using long-term bicycle counting data to extrapolate data from a short-term counting site. Extrapolation of a short-term bicycle counting site requires an accurate and complete set of daily factors from a group of references: long-term bicycle counters. In practice, validation of reference data is done manually, an exercise that is time-consuming but crucial as significant error can be introduced into AADB extrapolation if reference data are not validated. This paper proposes an automated method to validate long-term bicycle count data and interpolate anomalous portions of data. As part of this work, the methods are validated using a relatively large dataset of automated bicycle counts. For validation of our approach, data anomalies are created artificially in a way that removes data (first trial), or reduces counts to 25% or 40% of the measured bicycle counts (second and third trials), for 6 hours, 12 hours, and full days. Of the more than 100 generated anomalies, the validation process flagged approximately 90% in the first and second trials and 80% in the third trial. The average absolute relative error of the interpolated daily values was approximately 10% for all three trials.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".