Population Density or Populations Size. Which Factor Determines Urban Traffic Congestion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A large number of articles have documented that as population density of cities increases, car use declines and public transit use rises. These articles had a significant impact of promoting high-density compact urban development to mitigate traffic congestion. Another approach followed by other researchers used the urban scaling model to indicate that traffic congestion increases as population size of cities increases, thus generating a possible contradictory result. Therefore, this study examines the role of both density and population size on traffic congestion in 164 global cities by the use of Stochastic Impacts by Regression on Population, Affluence and Technology model. We divide 164 cities into the two subgroups of 66 low density cities and 98 high density cities for analysis. The findings from the subgroups analysis indicated a clear-cut difference on the critical role of density in low-density cities and the exclusive role of population size in high-density cities. Furthermore, using threshold regression model, 164 cities are divided into the two regions of large and small population cities to determine population scale advantage of traffic congestion. Our findings highlight the importance of including analysis of subgroups based on density and/or population size in future studies of traffic congestion.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".