Metropolis-Hasting based Expanded Path Size Logit model for cyclists’ route choice using GPS data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study contributes to the field of cycling route choice by adopting the unprecedented combination of the Metropolis-Hastings (MH) path-sampling algorithm and the Expanded Path Size Logit (EPSL) model. The MH sampling approach is used to generate 15 alternative route choice sets for cyclists. The EPSL multivariate route choice framework is utilized to account for the correlation between sampled and non-sampled alternatives (joint MH-EPSL model). The data used in this paper is drawn from GPS data collected by the City of Toronto using a custom-built smartphone application in 2014–2015. The study focuses on non-work-related cycling trips (shopping, leisure, social and others) in downtown Toronto on weekdays. The estimated results indicate that the presence of bicycle lanes and road medians attractions and number of trees along the path have a positive impact on cyclist route choice. In general, cyclists prefer to take shorter routes on lower speed roads with less public transit stops especially during the evening rush hour, and less willing to take one-way streets, local roads, and steep road segments. These findings are useful to policy makers as well as transportation and urban designers when developing a cycling network aiming to attract more cyclists. Finally, our results indicate that the MH-EPSL model performance is an appropriate framework to study cyclists’ route choice decisions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".