Analyzing Transit User Behavior with 51 Weeks of Smart Card Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A better understanding of mobility behaviors is relevant to many applications in public transportation, from more accurate travel demand models to improved supply adjustment, customized services and integrated pricing. In line with this context, this study mined 51 weeks of smart card (SC) data from Montréal, Canada to analyze interpersonal and intrapersonal variability in the weekly use of public transit. Passengers who used only one type of product (AP − annual pass, MP − monthly pass, or TB − ticket book) over 12 months were selected, amounting to some 200,000 cards. Data was first preprocessed and summarized into card-week vectors to generate a typology of weeks. The most popular weekly patterns were identified for each type of product and further studied at the individual level. Sequences of week clusters were constructed to represent the weekly travel behavior of each user over 51 weeks. They were then segmented by type of product according to an original distance, therefore highlighting the heterogeneity between passengers. Two indicators were also proposed to quantify intrapersonal regularity as the repetition of weekly clusters throughout the weeks. The results revealed MP owners have a more regular and diversified use of public transit. AP users are mainly commuters whereas TB users tend to be more occasional transit users. However, some atypical groups were found for each type of product, for instance users with 4-day work weeks and loyal TB users.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".