MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897608845 · doi:10.1155/2018/2696037

Transportation Planning through GIS and Multicriteria Analysis: Case Study of Beijing and XiongAn

2018· article· en· W2897608845 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Asim Farooq, Mowen Xie, Svetla Stoilova, Firoz Ahmad, Meng Guo, Edward J. Williams, Vimal Gahlot, Yan Du, Ahmat Mahamat Issa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesChina Postdoctoral Science FoundationNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsBeijingTransport engineeringGeographic information systemTransportation planningAnalytic hierarchy processFlow networkUrbanizationPopulationComputer scienceOperations researchEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urban population growth and urbanization with its impact on urban planning require continuous research in order to address the challenges posed by transportation requirements. Identifying transportation capacity (road and railways) is an important task that can identify whether the network is capable of sustaining the present volume of traffic and whether it can handle the future intended traffic flow. A new city, XiongAn, will be built in the coming years in order to relieve the pressure of population on Beijing and disperse the economic growth, business activity, and opportunities across the country. The focus of this research is to generate a transportation model between Beijing and XiongAn, in order to increase connection and connectivity, reduce travel time, and increase transfer capacity between the two hubs (Beijing-XiongAn). The existing transportation network between two cities is analyzed and a network which can handle future demand has been proposed. The first stage has been the investigation of a variety of options using geographic information system (GIS). Planning and implementing a mass transit system requires choosing among options such as an existing intercity railway line, a new high-speed railway line, and/or motorway options. In the second phase of our analysis, we assess these options relative to multiple criteria, using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The options were evaluated using various criteria responsible for selection of alternative; it is found that travel time, cost of travel, safety, reliability, accessibility, and environment are key criteria for selecting the best alternative. The GIS and multicriteria analysis suggested that the best option is to build a new high speed railway line.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations39
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207