On the accuracy of schedule-based GTFS for measuring accessibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we assess the accuracy with which General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) schedule data can be used to measure accessibility by public transit as it varies over space and time. We use archived Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) data from four North American transit agencies to produce a detailed reconstruction of actual transit vehicle movements over the course of five days in a format that allows for travel time estimation directly comparable to schedule-based GTFS. With travel times estimated on both schedule-based and retrospective networks, we compute and compare a variety of accessibility measures. We find that origin-based accessibility even when averaged over one-hour periods can vary widely between locations. Origins with lower scheduled access tend to produce less reliable estimates with more variability from hour to hour in real accessibility, while higher access zones seem to converge on an estimate 5-15 percent lower than the schedule predicts. Such over- and under-predictions exhibit strong spatial patterns which should be of concern to those using accessibility metrics in statistical models. Momentary measures of accessibility are briefly discussed and found to be weakly related to momentary changes in real access. These findings bring into question the validity of some recent applications of GTFS data and point the way toward more robust methods for calculating accessibility.
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 | 0.022 | 0.139 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".