Land Use Change Ontology and Traffic Prediction through Recurrent Neural Networks: A Case Study in Calgary, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Land use and transportation planning have a significant impact on the performance of cities’ traffic conditions and the quality of people’s lives. The changing characteristics of land use will affect and challenge how a city is able to manage, organize, and plan for new developments and transportation. These challenges can be better addressed with effective methods of monitoring and predicting, which can enable optimal efficiency in how a growing city like Calgary, Canada, can perform. Using ontology in land use planning is a new initiative currently being researched and explored. In this regard, ontology incorporates relationships between the various entities of land use. The aim of this study is to present Land Use Change Ontology (LUCO) with a deep neural network for traffic prediction. We present a Land Use Change Ontology (LUCO) approach, using expressions of how the semantics of land use changes relate to the integration of temporal land use information. This study examines the City of Calgary’s land use data from the years 2001, 2010, and 2015. In applying the LUCO approach to test data, experimental outcomes indicated that from 2001 to 2015 residential land use increased by 30% and open space decreased by 40%. Forecasting traffic is increasingly essential for successful traffic modelling, operations, and management. However, traditional means for predicting traffic flow have largely assumed restrictive model architectures that have not controlled for the amounts of land use change. Inspired by deep learning methods and effective data mining computing capabilities, this paper introduces the deep learning Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) to predict traffic while considering the impact of land use change. The RNN was successful in learning the features of traffic flow under various land use change situations. Experimental results indicated that, with the consideration of LUCO, the deep learning predictors had better accuracy when compared with other existing models. Success of our modeling approach indicates that cities could apply this modeling approach to make land use transportation planning more efficient.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".