MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2991380985 · doi:10.1155/2019/8475937

Modeling Influencing Factors for Passenger Flow Growth of Modern Trams Using System Dynamics Method

2019· article· en· W2991380985 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mao Ye, Ninghui Yang, Zhibin Li, Lingling Ma, Yajing Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsEconomic shortageService (business)ChinaTransport engineeringLevel of serviceService levelSystem dynamicsFlow (mathematics)Operations managementOperations researchComputer scienceEngineeringBusinessGeographyMathematicsMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modern trams have been widely used around the world, especially in China. This paper explores the main influencing factors of modern trams’ passenger flow at the early operational stage. The system dynamics model is adopted for dealing with the problem on hand. Tram Line 1 in Huai’an, Jiangsu Province, China is selected as the case study. Data are collected using the RP and SP survey. The sensitivity test and extreme condition test are performed. The simulation results demonstrate that four variables (i.e., land development intensity, fares, service level, and transfer efficiency) significantly affect passenger flow. Land development intensity is the most significant factor, and the effect of service level on passenger flow is higher than that of the fares. The departure interval of 10 minutes is the maximum psychological limit that passengers can bear, and 2 RMB is a reasonable price. Such conclusions can provide guidance for the planning and design of modern trams and address the problem of shortage of passengers at an early stage.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced Transportation→Same topicUrban Transport and Accessibility→French-language works237,207→