Travel Behavior Analysis Using 2016 Qingdao’s Household Traffic Surveys and Baidu Electric Map API Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Household traffic surveys are widely used in travel behavior analysis, especially in travel time and distance analysis. Unfortunately, any one kind of household traffic surveys has its own problems. Even all household traffic survey data is accurate, it is difficult to get the trip routes information. To our delight, electric map API (e.g., Google Maps, Apple Maps, Baidu Maps, and Auto Navi Maps) could provide the trip route and time information, which remedies the traditional traffic survey’s defect. Thus, we can take advantage of the two kinds of data and integrate them into travel behavior analysis. In order to test the validity of the Baidu electric map API data, a field study on 300 taxi OD pairs is carried out. According to statistical analysis, the average matching rate of total OD pairs is 90.74%, which reflects high accuracy of electric map API data. Based on the fused data of household traffic survey and electric map API, travel behavior on trip time and distance is analyzed. Results show that most purposes’ trip distances distributions are concentrated, which are no more than 10 kilometers. It is worth noting that students have the shortest travel distance and company business’s travel distance distribution is dispersed, which has the longest travel distance. Compared to travel distance, the standard deviations of all purposes’ travel time are greater than the travel distance. Car users have longer travel distance than bus travelers, and their average travel distance is 8.58km.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".