Assessing the Evolution of Transit User Behavior from Smart Card Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a huge potential for exploiting information centered on individual transit users’ behavior through longitudinal smart card data. This is particularly true for cities like Gatineau, Canada, where the bus system serves passengers with different travel patterns. Understanding the evolution of these patterns marks an important point in improving transit demand forecasting models. Indeed, better models can help transit planners to create optimized networks. This paper proposes a comparison of a traditional and an experimental methodology aiming to identify the evolution of travel structure among transit users. These methodologies are based on the clustering of multi-week travel patterns derived from a large sample of smart card transactions (35.4 million). Representing users’ behavior, these patterns are constructed using the number of trips made by every card on each day of a week. Behavior vectors are defined by seven components (one for each day) and are clustered using a K-means algorithm. The experimental week-to-week method consists in clustering the population on each week, while using the clustering results from the previous week as seed. This latter approach makes it possible to observe the evolution of users’ behaviors and also has a better clustering quality in a similar computation time than the traditional method.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".