GIS-based transit trip allocation methods converting stop-level boarding and alighting trips into TAZ trips
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
This study introduces a framework to improve the utilization of new data sources such as automated vehicle location (AVL) and automated passenger counting (APC) systems in transit ridership forecasting models. The direct application of AVL/APC data to travel forecasting requires an important intermediary step that links stops and activities – boarding and alighting – to the actual locations (at the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) level) that generated/attracted these trips. GIS-based transit trip allocation methods are developed with a focus on considering the case when the access shed spans multiple TAZs. The proposed methods improve practical applicability with easily obtained data. The performance of the proposed allocation methods is further evaluated using transit on-board survey data. The results show that the methods can effectively handle various conditions, particularly for major activity generators. The average errors between observed data and the proposed method are about 8% for alighting trips and 18% for boarding trips.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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