MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2986181312 · doi:10.32866/10828

Where to put bike counters? Stratifying bicycling patterns in the city using crowdsourced data

2019· article· en· W2986181312 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueFindings · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of Victoria
FundersSimon Fraser UniversityPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of CanadaArizona State University
KeywordsCategorizationTransport engineeringCrowdsourcingComputer scienceGeographyEngineeringWorld Wide WebArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When designing bicycle count programs, it can be difficult to know where to locate counters to generate a representative sample of bicycling ridership. Crowdsourced data on ridership has been shown to represent patterns of temporal ridership in dense urban areas. Here we use crowdsourced data and machine learning to categorize street segments into classes of temporal patterns of ridership. We used continuous signal processing to group 3,880 street segments in Ottawa, Ontario into six classes of temporal ridership that varied based on overall volume and daily patterns (commute vs non-commute). Transportation practitioners can use this data to strategically place counters across these strata to efficiently capture bicycling ridership counts that better represent the entire city.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it