An Improved Social Force Model for Bicycle Flow in Groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bicycle flow widely has group behavior (i.e., cyclists have a tendency to ride in groups), which may have some significant effects on the bicycle’s motion. However, the existing studies on bicycle flow rarely consider this factor. Generally, bicycle flow has two kinds of group behaviors, i.e., shoulder group behavior and following group behavior. In this paper, we propose an improved social force (SF) model to describe the two kinds of group behaviors. Then, we use the improved SF model to, respectively, explore the effects of the two kinds of group behaviors on the bicycle’s motion from the simulation perspective. The numerical results show that (i) shoulder group behavior has some negative impacts on the bicycle’s motion, i.e., the critical density (where the through capacity can reach the maximum value), the jam density, and the through capacity will be reduced; (ii) following group behavior has some positive impacts on the bicycle’s motion, i.e., the critical density, the jam density, and the through capacity will be enhanced; (iii) the impacts of coexistence of shoulder and following group behavior are related to the density. Besides, increasing group size and group probability will enlarge the negative impacts of shoulder group behavior and alleviate the positive impacts of following group behavior. These results can guide administrators to better manage bicycle flow (especially reasonably control the negative impacts of group behaviors).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".