Approximating Betweenness Centrality to Identify Key Nodes in a Weighted Urban Complex Transportation Network
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
The key nodes in a complex transportation network have a significant influence on the safety of traffic operations, connectivity reliability, and the performance of the entire network. However, the identification of key nodes in existing urban transportation networks has mainly focused on nonweighted networks and the network information of the nodes themselves, which do not accurately reflect their global status. Thus, the present study proposes a key node identification algorithm that combines traffic flow features and is based on weighted betweenness centrality. This study also uses weighted roads to construct an L-space weighted transportation network and an approximate algorithm for betweenness centrality in order to reduce the complexity of the calculations. The results of the simulation indicate that the proposed algorithm is not only capable of identifying the key nodes in a relatively short amount of time, but it does so with high accuracy. The findings of this study can be used to provide decision-making support for road network management, planning, and urban traffic construction optimization.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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