MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006532802 · doi:10.1061/jtepbs.0000332

Transit Holding Control Model for Real-Time Connection Protection

2020· article· en· W3006532802 on OpenAlexaff
Eui-Hwan Chung, Mahmood Mahmoodi Nesheli, Amer Shalaby

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Transportation Engineering Part A Systems · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransit (satellite)Scheduling (production processes)Transfer (computing)Transfer stationPublic transportProbabilistic logicSensitivity (control systems)Computer scienceRapid transitTransit systemControl (management)Transport engineeringOperations researchEngineeringOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The time required to transfer between different transit lines is a critical component of passenger travel time. Although transit agencies attempt to design well-coordinated timetables among intersecting lines at the scheduling stage, an operational control method is necessary to maintain the coordinated transfers that may occasionally be disrupted due to unexpected delays of public transit (PT) vehicles. One possible and practical approach is Connection Protection (CP), which involves holding a transit unit in order to wait for another transit unit that is planned to provide a coordinated transfer but has been delayed. This study develops a CP model to apply holding control to a receiving vehicle trip for the purpose of protecting the scheduled connection against delay of a feeder trip. The study incorporates the probabilistic nature of transit operations in formulating the cost function of the model, and accordingly makes more robust decisions for controlling the PT system. The developed model is evaluated by means of a sensitivity analysis. The results show that the model improves transfer efficiency and reduces the waiting times of affected passengers while minimizing delays to other passengers.

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 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 score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Transportation Engineering Part A SystemsSame topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207