MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bilevel Decision-Support Model for Bus-Route Optimization and Accessibility Improvement for Seniors

2019· article· en· W2998221938 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computing in Civil Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBilevel optimizationPublic transportScheme (mathematics)Transit (satellite)Computer scienceGenetic algorithmTransport engineeringDisadvantagedOperations researchOrder (exchange)Decision support systemService (business)Routing (electronic design automation)Optimization problemEngineeringComputer networkBusinessEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bus route networks play a pivotal role in public transit system planning, which, in turn, influences the geographical distribution and service coverage of bus transit. Although some advanced approaches have been applied to optimize route network planning, transit-related social exclusion still exists for particular socially disadvantaged groups, such as seniors. Furthermore, because transit agencies are generally the primary decision makers in conventional route optimization, the leading decisions may not favor the interests of transit users. In this study, an optimization methodology for bus route redesign is introduced in order to facilitate transit operation management and enhance the benefits that seniors receive from transit services. A bilevel decision support model (BLDSM) for two schemes is formulated for the identified problem. In the proposed model, transit agencies, as lower-level decision makers, locate appropriate bus stops and generate bus routes using the shortest distance as an optimization criterion. Meanwhile, decisions with regard to providing maximum accessibility to seniors as the upper-level decision makers are taken into account. To address this problem, a location-routing-allocation strategy is proposed and implemented in Scheme I using exact methods, and, in Scheme II, exact methods are integrated with a genetic algorithm (GA) in order to identify a near-optimal solution. A numerical example is provided to assess the feasibility of the proposed method for the two schemes. A discussion of what might happen if the roles of transit agencies and seniors were adjusted in the built BLDSM is also included.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.386
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.240 · 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