Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyses the robustness of specific public transport networks. Common attributes and which of them have more influence on the networks’ vulnerability are established. Initially, the structural properties of the networks in two graphical representations (L-Space and P-Space) are checked. Afterwards, the spread of problems (traffic jams, etc.) are simulated, employing a model based on a propagation and recovery mechanism, similar to those used in the epidemiological processes. Next, the size of the largest connected subset of stops of the network (giant component) is measured. What is shown is that the faults randomly happened at stops or links, also displaying that those that occurred in the highest weighted links spread slower than others. These others appear at stops with the largest level of betweenness, degree, or eigenvector centralities and PageRank. The modification of the giant component, when several stops and links are removed, proves that the removal of stops with the highest interactive betweenness, PageRank, and degree centralities has the most significant influence on the network’s integrity. Some equivalences in the degree, betweenness, PageRank, and eigenvector centrality parameters have been found. All networks show high modularity with values of index Q close to 1. The networks with the highest assortativity and lowest average number of stops are the ones which a passenger can use to travel directly to their destination, without any change. The Molloy–Reed parameter is higher than 2 in all networks, demonstrating that high integrity exists in them. All stops were characterized by low k-cores ≤3.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".