MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3106294846 · doi:10.22215/etd/2013-10743

Investigation of Pedestrian Movement in Groups and in High-Density Bottlenecks Using Discrete Choice Modelling Framework

2013· dissertation· en· W3106294846 on OpenAlexafffund
Zohreh Rashedi-Ashrafi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEvacuation and Crowd Dynamics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPedestrianCrowdsMovement (music)Computer scienceMode (computer interface)Plan (archaeology)Transport engineeringSimulationEngineeringHuman–computer interactionGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Walking as a non-motorized mode of transport is an essential component of sustainable environment.To increase the share of walking in transportation and accordingly to plan and manage pedestrian areas, a deep understanding of pedestrian movement behaviour is required.Developing a model that can reproduce pedestrian behaviour can be used as a tool for assessing the existing and designing new pedestrian spaces.The aim of this thesis is to provide walking behaviour models based on discrete choice framework first to study the behaviour of pedestrians walking in groups and second to investigate pedestrian movements at bottlenecks under high density situations.Discrete choice models focus directly on behavioural aspects of pedestrian movement and model the choice behaviour of individuals when they have to select among a set of alternatives.The correlation between alternatives is captured by Cross-nested logit model in this thesis.Data has been extracted from real-world video recordings of pedestrian crowds in order to calibrate and validate walking behaviour models.In the first part of this thesis, group behaviour has been modeled based on the tendency of group members to maintain group unity.Maximum likelihood estimation has been used for the calibration purpose.The significance of social bonds between group members in presenting a realistic walking behaviour has been revealed in the estimation process.In the second part of the thesis, a simulation tool has been developed to calibrate and validate a model presenting pedestrian behaviour at high density bottlenecks.The validation results confirm the acceptable performance of walking models proposed in both parts of the thesis.

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)0.002
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEvacuation and Crowd DynamicsFrench-language works237,207